• Coach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    It’d be faster to just execute him…Biden, I’m looking at you. What, with all your newly appointed powers - thanks SCOTUS!

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I hate to say it, but Seal Team Sixing SCOTUS justices until the survivors reconsider their decision is pretty much the only way to undo the United States’ recent transformation into a monarchy.

  • Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Garland will never do it. It would look political. And as everyone knows, not looking political is more important to Gutless Garland than saving democracy

  • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Unless there are 17 senators willing to cross party lines to actually remove him from office, any investigation will be an elaborate waste of time. His corruption is already documented. Either you have the votes to remove or you don’t.

    Don’t get me wrong; I’m all for getting rid of both Thomas and Alito. But I’m not in favor of wasting yet more taxpayer money holding hearings to “investigate” something we already know already and that has a zero percent chance of leading to removal from the bench, or even any meaningful change.

    • Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      If Thomas didn’t pay his taxes, he can be convicted and punished as the law stipulates. He just doesn’t lose his job without impeachment. Impeachment is political.

    • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Even if the Senate voted unanimously to remove him, the Supreme Court would just rule it unconstitutional.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    The only thing dumber than Obama naming Garland as SC to prove a point. Was Biden actually fucking appointing him to this position…

    We’re fighting literally fascists with people actually doing “both sides” bullshit where they pretend the right is rational and should be treated fairly

    That’s not how you fight fascism, that’s how you lose to it. By pretending that they’re arguing in good faith.

    I’m tired of the only option against the interlorant being tolerance.

    We need our government to take this shit seriously, it’s not exactly new problems

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    Why are we bothering to pretend that Garland is gonna do something effective?

    His DOJ just let Boeing off the hook.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Washington — A pair of Senate Democrats have asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to look into whether Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas violated any federal tax or ethics laws when he accepted travel and lodging from wealthy benefactors.

    Senate Democrats have been investigating ethics practices at the Supreme Court in the wake of news articles detailing travel Thomas accepted from Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, which he did not disclose on his financial reports.

    The conservative justice has maintained that he did not believe he was required to report the trips under rules regarding personal hospitality, but pledged to comply with new disclosure guidelines from the Judicial Conference issued last March.

    Thomas formally reported two trips he took with Crow in July 2019 — to Bali, Indonesia, and a private club in Monte Rio, California — on his latest financial disclosure filed in May.

    The justice’s lawyer told Wyden and Whitehouse in a letter in January that the Thomas and his wife "made all payments to Mr. Welters on a regular basis until the terms of the agreement were satisfied in full.

    Sen. Dick Durbin, the panel’s chairman, attempted last month to unanimously pass legislation that would require the Supreme Court to adopt binding ethics rules, but it was blocked by Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican.


    The original article contains 836 words, the summary contains 222 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!