politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Because Thomas literally gave her that argument to make in the immunity ruling. She literally cited his comments and basically copied his ruling like a high school kid copying off the "smart" kid in the class.
He basically told her "Hey, throw the case out. We've got your back."
Except nobody signed on to his concurrence. He was acting alone in his "analysis"
That's the Thomas two-step. He uses these concurrences to issue marching orders to the judges below him, so that it can be challenged up to the Supreme Court and then his concurrence becomes precedent.
Thomas is not the supreme court. And he's starting to alienate himself from even the other conservative justices. He's on an island and I doubt the others would follow his lead if this reaches SCOTUS on appeal.
They'll rule it's Constitutional to hunt Democrats for their pelts and you'll still be pretending the Court is legitimate. 🙄
None of them went out of their way to distance themselves from his comments, either. They didn't offer any kind of dissenting opinon. They didn't speak out against his advisory opinion, which is supposed to be against SC norms. And they haven't spoken out since. And given their rulings since gaining the supermajority, along with their "nuke it and everything close to it" approach to ruling on matters, and there's no reason to believe they wouldn't gladly just go along with whatever Clarence Thomas says, or at the very least, not care enough to vote against him.
This isn't even the first time he gave an advisory opinion. Remember the literal list of cases he said he wanted to review and overturn? He wouldn't be so brazenly and openly giving these literal roadmaps of what cases to bring before them if he didn't believe he had at least four more votes. And none of them have given us any reason to believe otherwise.