Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
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.
anyone who likes logical consistency
That's the neat part, they don't.
... 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.
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
Thank you for your service
Can anyone explain what “to wit” means in this instance?
It’s the same as saying “namely”, or “that is to say”. In this instance it means, “and that one proposition is..”
Thank you kindly
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)
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.
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.
As long as I’ve paid attention to politics, republicans have been massive hypocrites and have not give a damn when called out.
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
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.
All someone has to do if there's any backlash is to say "both sides" and people will immediately dismiss it.
Big fucking surprise. The SC is illegitimate and hopelessly corrupt.
“I am the Senate”
-Justice Sheev Alito
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.
Which will be another nail in the coffin of our Republic.
At this point, that would be a good thing... Poor fellow's been rotting for awhile.
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.
Are we ready to pull a President Jackson?
He needs to permanently recuse himself from every case ever. This guy is a fucking mockery of the American Justice System.
He won't because he knows he's hurting the libs. Man this is extremely depressing.
Surprise appearance from Ken Burns
Ken Burns: Corruption. It’s a 12 part series that’s 150 hrs long.
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.
Funding ain't easy!
At some point the shit mountain has to get so big impeaching him is the only option. Right?
Republicans have to give a shit about ethics and the rule of law first, or be voted out. I wouldn't hold my breath.
As long as Republicans hold any amount of power, they will abuse it to protect their own no matter how corrupt, unethical, or illegal the actions. They know that if they break lockstep even a little bit, their unpopular authoritarian pyramid scheme will crumble.
"We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing."
See also: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/16/ken-paxton-acquitted-impeachment-texas-attorney-general/
The Ken Paxton thing is especially telling. He was impeached by Republicans, but the second the impeachment started generating national coverage, they backed off and said it was fine.
ken paxton is a slimy little cunt that shouldn’t be underestimated. i have no doubt behind closed doors he pulled every dirty trick in the book. this is the kind of person that finds and keeps dirt on anyone that might try to destroy him.
and when you have 2/3 the politicians in your pocket, it’s easy to strong arm enough of the other 1/3 to stfu and keep their heads down.
it wasn’t like republicans saw the limelight was on the case and decided to play nice. quite the opposite. the reps that started this whole fight are establishment republicans trying to get their party in the people’s good graces enough to save their fucking party in 2024.
the dumbass think tanks don’t get that (or rather, think they can work with that) and have been performing actions that add nail after nail into their coffin.
The Eleventh Commandment was a phrase used by President of the United States Ronald Reagan during his 1966 campaign for Governor of California. The Commandment reads:
Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.
Republicans used to revere St. Ronnie but these days he'd never make it through a primary.
I mean, let's be honest here - none of the gifts, favors, or special treatment Thomas has received has changed his decisions. He was always going to pick the most reactionary, oligarch-friendly position. No one has ever said, "The court looks pretty split on this issue, and Clarence Thomas may be the deciding vote."
If you're going to bribe a Justice or try to sway the Court, you pick a moderate. You don't pay the Kool-Aid Man to charge through walls, it's just what he does.
That’s no secret, he’s a member of that whole party. I’d be actually surprised if someone proved he didn’t.
There will never be legitimacy with him on the bench.
The article referenced: https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-secretly-attended-koch-brothers-donor-events-scotus
Saved you a click.
Isn't that the exact same article that was posted here?
Yes, and I couldn't get it to load without going to propublica.org directly. So I linked it directly, to help others. There's still a few flaky things about the fediverse, and since I'd gone to the trouble to find the article, I figured to save others a few clicks.
It is time for the executive and legislative branches to act. They can remove him.
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.
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 as leverage.