this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
368 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19244 readers
2644 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A former House GOP lawmaker says Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should be removed from the bench over his “unethical” behavior and taunted people to challenge him.

“Come at me. I got receipts,” Denver Riggleman posted to X, calling Thomas’ wife, Ginni Thomas, “disturbed.”

Riggleman posted in response to a clip of Donald Trump saying at a rally that “people should be put in jail for the way they talk about our judges and justices.”

“Clarence Thomas is, at the least, unethical. Should be removed from the bench. His wife, Ginni Thomas, is disturbed. Come at me. I got receipts.” Riggleman said.

Riggleman was a senior technical adviser for the January 6th committee that investigated the deadly insurrection that saw a mob of mostly Trump supporters overrun the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

In other words, he was the person who collected and analyzed the data collected from cell phones and other devices.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DekesEnormous 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Right, there's no way they would do something super unethical and try to apply their words differently to a sitting president above reproach in comparison to the convicted felon running for office.

[–] Promethiel 9 points 3 months ago

They uh, would need to remain capable of speech for that. Surely there's official act way of stopping that.