this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
475 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2510 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. 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.
  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
 

The former president has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling in Colorado that he is ineligible to appear on the state primary ballot because of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

A group of House Democrats on Thursday called on conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from a case involving former President Donald Trump's eligibility to appear on Colorado's Republican primary ballot.

Trump on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to overturn a Colorado court ruling last month that disqualified him from appearing on the ballot over his conduct leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The former president’s appeal came after the state’s Republican Party filed its own appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision. The state court put its ruling on hold to allow for appeals, meaning Trump could remain on the ballot pending U.S. Supreme Court action.

A group of House Democrats, led by Rep. Hank Johnson, of Georgia, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee’s courts subcommittee, demanded that Thomas recuse himself from the case in a letter dated Thursday.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 86 points 10 months ago (10 children)

“I could recuse myself to help settle down the corruption cases building against me…. Naaaa, I’m a fucking Supreme Court justice, I AM the law”

[–] xor@sh.itjust.works 16 points 10 months ago (2 children)

i feel like there's a good Judge Dredd photoshop waiting to happen here...

[–] shikitohno@kbin.social 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If you could offer enough money, you could probably get him to show up to hear cases dressed liked Judge Dredd.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That would be a bribe and Justice Clarence Thomas has proved time and time again that he's never accepted a bribe!

He'll accept a gift, though. If you buy him, like, 300 Judge Dredd costumes and a couple for his mom, then it would just be bad manners not to wear them, right?

[–] xor@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

maybe just a yacht would do it...

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

And I'm here to remind you

Of the mess you made when you killed Roe v Wade

It's not fair, don't deny it!

The bribes you bear you say they gave away

You- you... Yacht ta know!

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] xor@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

well, at least AI is good for something

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I mean, given that Roberts is scared of AI, and I'm not wasting more on Clarence than the four minutes it took to generate this, it seemed appropriate.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 57 points 10 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 56 points 10 months ago (2 children)

we are well beyond anyone in the SC recusing themselves for any reason. these dems are smokin the reefer

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago

I get that they want to be on record pressuring him to recuse himself from the trial but I agree, this seems like a waste of breath.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 48 points 10 months ago

Urging Clarence Thomas to behave ethically is like urging an oil tycoon to put the lives and health of people over profits.

Neither is ever going to happen unless you force them to.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 29 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Is his wife facing charges for being a leader of the movement that led to Jan 6th?

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

"Who put this pubic hair in my Supreme Court?"

[–] Human@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 10 months ago (6 children)

I swear the finger-wagging will work this time! Come on everyone, behave and follow the rules! /s

Seriously though, when will Dems key into the fact that the right doesn't give a fuck about rules or institution? They've been doing obstructionist politics since Obama. They are obviously not interested in playing fair or governing effectively.

So, at what point do Dems become complicit?...

*I am not saying; don't vote blue. Im saying we have to demand more from those who we elect before it is too late.

Its almost too late.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 10 points 10 months ago (3 children)

How about they stop "urging" the enemy to stop doing something, and instead of being feckless whiners, actually put on their big-boy pants and MAKE THEM!

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Often, the only way to make them is to change the law, and that can't be done without the consent of their corrupt allies in the Legislative Branch.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Great sentiment, but how would they do that? House Democrats don't really have any power

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

He will if Dems pay him enough.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The problem is house democrats arent using speech to tell him. Loads and loads of $peech.

[–] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

I'll take Things That Won't Happen for 200, Alex

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NotBillMurray@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

"No" -Clarence Thomas

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 months ago

Narrator: He didn’t.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


A group of House Democrats on Thursday called on conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from a case involving former President Donald Trump's eligibility to appear on Colorado's Republican primary ballot.

“This time, we must urge you to recuse yourself from any involvement in the case of Anderson v. Griswold, because your impartiality is reasonably questioned by substantial numbers of fair-minded members of the public, who believe you wife Virginia ('Ginni') Thomas’s substantial involvement in the events leading up to the January 6 insurrection, and the financial incentive it presents for your household if President Trump is re-elected, are disqualifying,” the lawmakers wrote.

“It is unthinkable that you could be impartial in deciding whether an event your wife personally organized qualifies as an ‘insurrection’ that would prevent someone from holding the office of President.”

Democratic Reps. Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania, Glenn Ivey of Maryland, Gerald Connolly of Virginia, Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Dan Goldman of New York also signed the letter.

But Thomas continues to face scrutiny for refusing to recuse himself from several other Jan. 6-related cases, including one involving whether Trump has presidential immunity from federal prosecution.

The Supreme Court last month denied special counsel Jack Smith’s request to step in ahead of the normal appeals process.


The original article contains 533 words, the summary contains 220 words. Saved 59%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Could we start a go fund me so we could pay him to vote in favor of democracy?

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 10 months ago

just give him a new pillow and he'll just fall asleep through it. if you tell him it costs a thousand dollars, he'll happily accept it.

load more comments
view more: next ›