this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
67 points (94.7% liked)

politics

18073 readers
4487 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In remarks at a judicial conference in Minnesota, Kavanaugh touted the court’s mixed decision votes this past term and his close relationships with other justices.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] themeatbridge 47 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And we should all listen to the SCOTUS justice who committed perjury to be confirmed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Why are you making this political?

[–] GARlactic 17 points 11 months ago

If it's not an institution of politics, then stop inserting your politics into it, you tool.

[–] Zombiepirate 17 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That's as stupid as saying the Senate is an institution of law, not politics.

It's both, you disingenuous dumbfuck.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 months ago

In a democratic society everything is political. What beer you drank at lunch is a political question. The Supreme Court is and has always been a political institution whether we or they claim it is or isn't.

[–] MicroWave 13 points 11 months ago (2 children)

He also said that when he joined the court, he was surprised by the amount of time the justices spent together. He said he estimated they probably eat lunch together about 65 times a year, adding, “And the rule at lunch is you can’t talk about work.”

“It’s a good rule,” he continued. “It builds relationships and friendships and then when we have tough cases — and we only really have tough cases — you have a reservoir of good will toward each of the other people.”

[–] [email protected] 31 points 11 months ago

And yet there are a striking number of high profile cases decided on a party line 6/3 vote. They can tout the supposed impartiality of the court all they like, but the numbers show otherwise.

Toss in the refusal to have a hearing on Garland with nearly a year left of Obama's term, then rushing Kavanaugh in, and of course changing tune when RBG died at the end of Trump's term to claim it was important to seat someone right away where both politcally motivated. Had none of the above nonsense happened the slant of the court would be much different now.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How many of those 65 lunches are on a private yacht belonging to one of the justices' donors?

[–] JustZ 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Thos lunches are off the books.

I had a state supreme court justice do me a solid one time. I brought her office staff donuts as a thank you and she refused them to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

These justices taking lavish vacations know exactly what they are doing.

[–] Jonna 9 points 11 months ago

Just remember that nearly the whole court came together in a kumbaya moment to screw unions. 8-1 decision, with Jackson being the sole dissenter.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-courts-ruling-strike-case-puts-unions-defense-2023-06-07/

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Never mind the nonsense that he spouts, the very existence of this crying beer baby as a supreme court judge is a mockery of the institution itself.

[–] reddig33 1 points 11 months ago

I guess that’s how you got that job, eh Kav? All that supposed knowledge of law you have that we’re still waiting for proof of. Your politics had nothing to do with it, right? 🙄