but I don't think political is the right word. Corrupt is more like it
I mean it's kinda the same thing at this point, don't you think?
You'll find very few Republicans condemning any of the corruption happening in the White House or doing anything to curtail it. They're all complicit, because tribalism trumps service.
Platner was simply accused of sexual assault and he was gone instantly. Trump gets caught admitting to it on tape and it only makes him more popular.
Also, I'm pretty big on oaths, so I cannot understand how you can take an oath to tell the truth during your confirmation hearings, and then lie during those same hearings. It feels like it should be automatically disqualifying from confirmation, and if it's discovered later, then it feels like it's fraud and they should be removed from their positions.
I think all but one of the conservative justices swore during their confirmation hearings that they would consider Roe v. Wade as precedent, or made other similar statements. If they truly viewed it as "precedent", then they would never vote to overturn it. So, several conservative justices lied under oath in order to be confirmed. They got their job under false pretenses.
George Santos was expelled from the House for lying about much less important issues, and not under oath.
If any of us lie during a job interview about something important, and it's discovered later, you can bet we'd be fired before we knew what hit us, and we don't swear a solemn oath when doing job interviews.
I feel like the moment a justice votes contrary to what they swore to, either during their confirmation hearings, or even as part of their oath of office, it's absolute proof that they were lying under oath and that they got their job under fraudulent pretenses. That should immediately invalidate their position, only to be reinstated if they can prove in court that their actions don't constitute a lie.
You cannot give any trust to a person who swears a solemn oath and then breaks that oath (with the exception of a wedding oath, which is an insane oath that cannot be held at face value, imo). I wouldn't trust an oath breaker to walk my dog if I had a dog.
If you automatically remove someone who lied on a confirmation, they can just ask insane or badly worded questions to catch someone in an innocuous lie and disqualify them
If you think that would work, then you could convict anybody of perjury in the same way. And again, I did say that it could be reviewed by the courts, which is the legal path we have to apply common-sense standards to unusual situations.
A PoP handbook states that members are expected to be obedient to male authorities, or group heads, and are expected to give 5% of their earnings to the group. Heads are influential decision-makers in members’ lives, weighing in on issues ranging from dating to marriage and determining where members should live.
During her confirmation I recall reading a number of reports that -- to put it politely -- indicate her husband has a great deal to do with her work; iow, that describe her as a "handmaiden" that is completely obedient to her husband, something she had said herself before her nomination. In the confirmation hearings she was questioned about this directly and forced to deny that her husband would be an influence if she were confirmed, but it was superficial at best. Outside the hearings, other reporting that took a much closer look at the husband revealed all kinds of sketchy links and obligations.
Which is to say that in her case the corruption is not primarily about money, it's a weirdly toxic faith, and the actor/beneficiary is not herself, but her husband and his ties. Think Leonard Leo. It was strange and dark and labyrinthine and I'd have to look it all up again to describe it in any detail, but man that is some shady shit going on just behind her.
Excellent comment up top, btw. Well sourced, much appreciated.
Is this some kind of revelation? At least as far back as Roe v Wade, the cons have been agitating for activist judges (yes, more projection on their part, imagine that) that will overturn women's rights.
Not to mention deliver all kinds of other conservative activist fuckery from the court....
For that website? Yeah it's a bigger deal for them to be saying this than idk, Washington Post or Huffington Post or Emily Post. maybe not Emily Post I take that back. I used to read the hill when I was more in politics. It was a fairly reliably [in the lens of the US Overton window, moderate/conservative/semicentrist] perspective.
Chief Justice John Roberts wants us to believe that neither the court nor the judiciary as a whole has “Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.” Justice Neil Gorsuch insists that the court is not populated by “politicians in robes.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett went on Fox News to say that justices “don’t wear red and blue, we all wear black because judges are
nonpartisan. And the idea is that we are all listening to the law. We’re all trying to get it right. We’re not playing for a team.”
One notes that the judges most invested in the appearance of "not playing for a team" are, in fact and by every discernible measure, all playing for the same team.
It's funny that they are trying this bullshit. Just like the dickheads that pretend to be "independents" and then proceed to do all kinds of concern trolling and Murc's Law bullshit about liberals and Democrats.
#1 - both sides are bad. #2 I didn't vote for this #3 I'm not MAGA #4 I'm a centrist. I'm in the middle #5 I don't like to talk about politics #6 You cut some off because of politics? #7 Why can't we all just get along?
And I'd love to know when that was, given we have stuff like Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Rail Road, and that was in 1886. I'd love to see someone defend the "corporations have the same rights as humans" thing as being apolitical, LOL.
My favorite thing is when someone chastises someone in a mixed group type of setting and says "we shouldn't talk politics". I mean, what the actual fuck, how do we do that?
Cannot even stick to the weather, since the cons have poisoned that entirely. If it's hot as fuck out, they are on pins and needles and just waiting for someone to indicate it is record setting heat and start raging out with some talking points related to it. Same when it's cold out or snow on the ground. Same with things like fires raging in the country. Or the drought. Or the price of gas and the price of just about everything else being sky-high...
I mean, seriously, it is nearly impossible for families/neighbors to not talk "politics". And even when you are talking about things that are for sure "politics", you have to all pretend you are not talking about things affected by politics...about the only safe topics might be music or sports, and even that is filled with landmines, given the culture war the cons have been conducting...
I used to think we needed to expand SCOTUS by 4 seats, but I no longer believe that. Now I think we need to expand SCOTUS by 20 seats, with rolling term limits, so each president gets to appoint a few.
No bad faith president should be able to negatively impact American policy for the next 50-75 years.
The best idea I saw had 18 year terms and each president may nominate 3 during their term, leading to a 27 member court. My math says 24 members so I must be misremembering something
27 will work, 31 will work, whatever. It just has to be large enough that one treasonous president can't significantly alter the composition of the court.
It's important that SCOTUS remain protected from the wild fluctuations in political direction that is common to the presidency. We need stability in the SCOTUS.
I prefer the idea that there is no set number of justices, every president gets to appoint one judge per term. Obviously they should still be approved by the Senate. After the Senate approves the judge, that's it, someone dies, to bad wait a few years for the next term or president. Sure we might end up with 20 justices if a bunch of young people are appointed but that just opens up the term limit conversation, and that would be great since lifetime appointments shouldn't be a thing for any position.
Even State Supreme Courts are political. The positions in our ballot pamphlet says "Nonpartisan" but candidates for every open position this year are very clearly political.
We get a side that wants to rewrite the state constitution without a vote of the people and another side that wants to bend the constitution to fit the needs of fascists.
it used to be less-so; back when confirmations needed at least some support from the minority party to get confirmed, and nominations were more moderate as a result of that higher bar.
It never has been, not long after the 14th amendment was ratified SCOTUS ruled in favor of corporations being people, exactly the same way they did Citizens United
46 replies
It's not just political. It's rotten to the core.
This is a classic of one of my posts, but I don't think political is the right word. Corrupt is more like it;
Friendly reminder, 5 out of 9 SCOTUS seem to have taken bribes:
I mean it's kinda the same thing at this point, don't you think?
You'll find very few Republicans condemning any of the corruption happening in the White House or doing anything to curtail it. They're all complicit, because tribalism trumps service.
Platner was simply accused of sexual assault and he was gone instantly. Trump gets caught admitting to it on tape and it only makes him more popular.
Also, I'm pretty big on oaths, so I cannot understand how you can take an oath to tell the truth during your confirmation hearings, and then lie during those same hearings. It feels like it should be automatically disqualifying from confirmation, and if it's discovered later, then it feels like it's fraud and they should be removed from their positions.
I think all but one of the conservative justices swore during their confirmation hearings that they would consider Roe v. Wade as precedent, or made other similar statements. If they truly viewed it as "precedent", then they would never vote to overturn it. So, several conservative justices lied under oath in order to be confirmed. They got their job under false pretenses.
George Santos was expelled from the House for lying about much less important issues, and not under oath.
If any of us lie during a job interview about something important, and it's discovered later, you can bet we'd be fired before we knew what hit us, and we don't swear a solemn oath when doing job interviews.
I feel like the moment a justice votes contrary to what they swore to, either during their confirmation hearings, or even as part of their oath of office, it's absolute proof that they were lying under oath and that they got their job under fraudulent pretenses. That should immediately invalidate their position, only to be reinstated if they can prove in court that their actions don't constitute a lie.
You cannot give any trust to a person who swears a solemn oath and then breaks that oath (with the exception of a wedding oath, which is an insane oath that cannot be held at face value, imo). I wouldn't trust an oath breaker to walk my dog if I had a dog.
If you automatically remove someone who lied on a confirmation, they can just ask insane or badly worded questions to catch someone in an innocuous lie and disqualify them
If you think that would work, then you could convict anybody of perjury in the same way. And again, I did say that it could be reviewed by the courts, which is the legal path we have to apply common-sense standards to unusual situations.
There seems to be something in common between all 5 of those Justices... but I can't put my finger on it.
That's 6. I was surprised by the number 5, being, as there are, 6 right-wingers on the court.
This one is just a bad look, not corruption.
It's an obedience situation with that one:
During her confirmation I recall reading a number of reports that -- to put it politely -- indicate her husband has a great deal to do with her work; iow, that describe her as a "handmaiden" that is completely obedient to her husband, something she had said herself before her nomination. In the confirmation hearings she was questioned about this directly and forced to deny that her husband would be an influence if she were confirmed, but it was superficial at best. Outside the hearings, other reporting that took a much closer look at the husband revealed all kinds of sketchy links and obligations.
Which is to say that in her case the corruption is not primarily about money, it's a weirdly toxic faith, and the actor/beneficiary is not herself, but her husband and his ties. Think Leonard Leo. It was strange and dark and labyrinthine and I'd have to look it all up again to describe it in any detail, but man that is some shady shit going on just behind her.
Excellent comment up top, btw. Well sourced, much appreciated.
Thanks, I'll look at this side of things too and add her to the list.
i'm lazy at the moment but there's a group that tracked the "totally not bribery" disclosures from the court and Barrett is no innocent
Oh wow, I'll look into that and update the classic if I find anything. Thanks.
iirc, they found 3-4 figures total in gifts each to the 3 liberal justices and 5-7 figures total in gifts each to the 6 trump justices
Is this some kind of revelation? At least as far back as Roe v Wade, the cons have been agitating for activist judges (yes, more projection on their part, imagine that) that will overturn women's rights.
Not to mention deliver all kinds of other conservative activist fuckery from the court....
For that website? Yeah it's a bigger deal for them to be saying this than idk, Washington Post or Huffington Post or Emily Post. maybe not Emily Post I take that back. I used to read the hill when I was more in politics. It was a fairly reliably [in the lens of the US Overton window, moderate/conservative/semicentrist] perspective.
One notes that the judges most invested in the appearance of "not playing for a team" are, in fact and by every discernible measure, all playing for the same team.
It's funny that they are trying this bullshit. Just like the dickheads that pretend to be "independents" and then proceed to do all kinds of concern trolling and Murc's Law bullshit about liberals and Democrats.
#1 - both sides are bad. #2 I didn't vote for this #3 I'm not MAGA #4 I'm a centrist. I'm in the middle #5 I don't like to talk about politics #6 You cut some off because of politics? #7 Why can't we all just get along?
https://www.instagram.com/original_pringles/reel/DZ8zh0NR01T/
This just in: shit comes from ass
Who is this man so wise in the ways of science.
Is anyone still denying it at this point?
Exactly. Who are they talking to?
The past, I suspect
And I'd love to know when that was, given we have stuff like Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Rail Road, and that was in 1886. I'd love to see someone defend the "corporations have the same rights as humans" thing as being apolitical, LOL.
Justice Kagan, for one
Everything is political. Even things that claim not to be are.
My favorite thing is when someone chastises someone in a mixed group type of setting and says "we shouldn't talk politics". I mean, what the actual fuck, how do we do that?
Cannot even stick to the weather, since the cons have poisoned that entirely. If it's hot as fuck out, they are on pins and needles and just waiting for someone to indicate it is record setting heat and start raging out with some talking points related to it. Same when it's cold out or snow on the ground. Same with things like fires raging in the country. Or the drought. Or the price of gas and the price of just about everything else being sky-high...
I mean, seriously, it is nearly impossible for families/neighbors to not talk "politics". And even when you are talking about things that are for sure "politics", you have to all pretend you are not talking about things affected by politics...about the only safe topics might be music or sports, and even that is filled with landmines, given the culture war the cons have been conducting...
Everything is political. Especially things that claim not to be.
Its "judges" (snort) are literally appointed by the president. Of course it's political.
I used to think we needed to expand SCOTUS by 4 seats, but I no longer believe that. Now I think we need to expand SCOTUS by 20 seats, with rolling term limits, so each president gets to appoint a few.
No bad faith president should be able to negatively impact American policy for the next 50-75 years.
The best idea I saw had 18 year terms and each president may nominate 3 during their term, leading to a 27 member court. My math says 24 members so I must be misremembering something
27 will work, 31 will work, whatever. It just has to be large enough that one treasonous president can't significantly alter the composition of the court.
It's important that SCOTUS remain protected from the wild fluctuations in political direction that is common to the presidency. We need stability in the SCOTUS.
I prefer the idea that there is no set number of justices, every president gets to appoint one judge per term. Obviously they should still be approved by the Senate. After the Senate approves the judge, that's it, someone dies, to bad wait a few years for the next term or president. Sure we might end up with 20 justices if a bunch of young people are appointed but that just opens up the term limit conversation, and that would be great since lifetime appointments shouldn't be a thing for any position.
Even State Supreme Courts are political. The positions in our ballot pamphlet says "Nonpartisan" but candidates for every open position this year are very clearly political.
We get a side that wants to rewrite the state constitution without a vote of the people and another side that wants to bend the constitution to fit the needs of fascists.
Wonderful times we live in.
The saying, 'politics has an interest in you even when you don't have an interest in politics' rings true.
These people don't care for facts or otherwise. Only what impedes their powerstruggle.
It's always been political
it used to be less-so; back when confirmations needed at least some support from the minority party to get confirmed, and nominations were more moderate as a result of that higher bar.
Except not really when you look at the history supporting racism and siding with business even in cases blatantly against what is "settled law".
It never has been, not long after the 14th amendment was ratified SCOTUS ruled in favor of corporations being people, exactly the same way they did Citizens United
always has been, always will be.
Never not been and impossible for it not to be.
Ok, I admit. Stop making such demands of me.
astronautwithpistol.jpg
🌎👨🚀🔫👨🚀
Uhhh yeah duh
pikachu face