this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
613 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19104 readers
3128 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] slickgoat 62 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Subpoena them one by one and confront them about specific issues. For instance Thomas and all those billionaire friends who keep dropping money in his lap. Congress committees have the power to do this.

Let sunlight into the dirty little acts of corruption and impeach. Hit them instead of just complaining all the damn time. Also, six or seven year term limits. Then every single president will get a chance to appoint a couple and the bench makeup will be more balanced.

[–] eric5949 32 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Congressional subpoenas mean absolutely nothing after Trump's term though. They'll just ignore then and what, you expect Merrick Garland to arrest a Supreme Court Justice for contempt of Congress? If it even gets that far.

[–] slickgoat 17 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Not so, I believe that Steve Bannon is going to the lockup for ignoring his in a week or so. I don't fancy that the supremes will want to risk that. It just takes will to apply the law. That's it.

Of course, the Dems will huff and puff and do nothing.

[–] eric5949 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Of course, the Dems will huff and puff and do nothing

That's my point, Merrick Garland of all people, Mr I don't want to appear political so I'll slow walk trump, isnt going to arrest a Supreme Court Justice mere months before an election if he ever would in the first place.

[–] slickgoat 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think that arresting a Supreme isn't going to happen. For a start the legal machinations and appeals will take at least two years. But, a subpoena is at least fighting back, and a threat. What is the alternative? Hand wringing?

The Conservatives wake up each and every day actively trying to destroy the American republic. Do you think that overturning Roe was just luck? That was a 25 year process. I'm not advocating violence, but just not taking it when your balls get stomped. There are shocking things that can be done. Boosting the bench to overcome the current bias, bringing in terms limits, and subpoenas for corruption. The subpoena won't necessarily lead to impeachment or arrest, but it will bring out every little dirty detail in public. Do you think that's not a threat to a dirty bench?

[–] Maggoty 6 points 5 months ago

People need to go listen to the confirmation hearings of the older judges where they said they considered Roe v Wade settled law that would take quite a lot to over turn. And then read the opinion that places medieval catholic church law above our Constitution. It should be required. With highlights and margin notes in comic sans red marker because apparently that's fun and attention grabbing.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Steve Bannon isn't an Important Person™ tho.

[–] slickgoat 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Never said he was. The constitution doesn't have categories of importance.

[–] BluescreenOfDeath 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If the constitution isn't equally enforced, it might not have categories of importance written in, but it's functionally no different.

The whole idea of the three different branches of government was supposed to be that each would keep the others in check. Once the Senate refused to convict Trump for contempt of Congress, I could see the writing on the wall. The houses are no longer co-equal, and one party likes it that way because it means they get to do shit like take away abortion from those godless libtards.

[–] slickgoat 2 points 4 months ago
[–] Maggoty 2 points 5 months ago

By which time they will have decided Trump v. Biden 2024 in a repeat of 2000. Or at least that's what my depression brain is telling me. Logical me says it will definitely take years but they'll end up impeached or having their seat stolen out form under them around about 2026. At which point they'll claim they're retiring and Sinclair news will blast every local news station with stories about how concerning it is to see politicians running judges out of office. But we'll get through it.

[–] Chainweasel 19 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If Gym Jordan doesn't have to comply with a congressional subpoena, what makes you think Clarence Thomas will?

[–] slickgoat 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure of the person you refer to (sorry, not American) but surely that's the problem. Not applying the law equally. Can a common murderer or thief decide that a legal direction doesn't apply to them?

[–] Chainweasel 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Jim Jordan (Gym is a nickname from years ago when he allowed students to get molested by a school doctor) is a representative from the state of Ohio who was involved with the January 6th plot to overthrow the government.
When they investigated it, they subpoenaed him and he refused to show up. So far it's been 3 years and no action has been taken whatsoever.
He helped plot a coup, he's STILL in power, and he ignored a subpoena from Congress with no consequences whatsoever.
He ranks considerably lower than the Supreme Court does in the grand scheme of things and if they're not going to force him to comply, they won't force any of the federal justices to comply.

[–] slickgoat 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Thank you for your detailed explanation.

The problem appears to be a lack of enforcement of already established law. Well, if you were permitted to ignore the law why the hell wouldn't you? That is my entire thesis. Stop allowing "important" public figures flout the law.

[–] BluescreenOfDeath 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The real issue is it's too easy for Republicans to paint it as weaponizing of official powers against political rivals who are absolutely innocent. The fear from Democrats is that holding him accountable would damage their public image badly enough to lose them seats in the House/Senate, thus giving the Republicans more power. Imagine a Trump Presidency with both the House and Congress controlled by MAGA Republicans.

If you want to know how Republican voters could see it that way, just watch Faux News for a few days. I work for an ISP that delivers TV services, and it's scary how many old people have Fox turned on 24/7.

Project 2024 scares the shit out of me. I've applied for passports for me and my two daughters, if Trump wins the next election I'm getting the fuck off this carnival ride.

[–] slickgoat 3 points 4 months ago

I think that it's Project 2025, but everything else you described is spot on.

[–] Burn_The_Right 1 points 4 months ago

if Trump wins the next election I'm getting the fuck off this carnival ride.

Where will you go that will allow you to stay?