this post was submitted on 29 May 2025
227 points (99.6% liked)
politics
23667 readers
2413 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It’s probably not an accident that this comes immediately after Trump nominated Emil Bove to the Third Circuit. The ABA deep dive into bargain bin Roy Cohn promised to be amusing.
fascism in progress
The ABA has historically been a rubber stamp for judicial appointments. They never had all that much power to begin with. Did the ABA stop Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito from taking the bench? What about Stuart Kyle Duncan or James Ho? Who have we actually been spared? Hell, how many members of the ABA are in the Federalist Society?
This isn't a change in policy, its a continuation minus the fig leaf of academic approval.
Just because it’s been flouted in the past doesn’t make getting rid of it a good thing. The ABA is an excellent input into whether a judge or lawyer should be approved. Removing it is an explicit way to limit criticism that should be part of the record.
Just because it’s been flouted in the past doesn’t make getting rid of it a good thing.
At some point, you need to recognize the hollowness of the institution. Otherwise, you're not doing anything to preserve legal standards, you're just going through the formal motions.
The ABA wasn't a good thing. It was a rubber stamp. As soon as it tried to be a good thing it was tossed aside. This is because the institution was hollow. It didn't do the job people professed it was doing. It crumbled immediately on the slightest pressure.
The solution is to build a more durable and robust institution, not to prop the paper tiger back up again. America is desperately in need of drastic judicial reforms. Maybe we can salvage something out of the folks at the ABA who had the spine necessary to test the limits of their power. But a toothless outside privately managed club of attorneys that can be brushed aside at the slightest inconvenience obviously isn't a benefit to judicial oversight.
It’s true, the bucket had a hole in it. But throwing the bucket away means there’s nothing now.
Except possibly the soiled towel that has been declared a “bucket” by executive order, which we might get in the future.
It’s true, the bucket had a hole in it.
I would not call admitting Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito the results of a leaky bucket.
This is more akin to a night watchman who has been letting burglars into your building for the last 40 years. Finally, he tries to stop one guy and the building manager fires him for getting in the burglar's way. "But we can't fire him! We'd have no night watchman!"
The ABA wasn't doing the job it was allegedly assigned. Now it's still not doing that job. Nothing has changed.
Terrible, yes, but I also wouldn't say the ABA "admitted" either of those two.
Should they have been thrown out of the ABA? In a perfect world, sure, but that's a whole different set of questions. And even then they could still have been nominated and confirmed. What would be different is the news orgs and the Senators confirming them would have no information instead of some.
If you're specifically referring to the sexual assault claims or other malfeasance, that's the FBI's job to investigate (which they very notably and obviously did not with Justice Boof), not the ABA.
Should they have been thrown out of the ABA? In a perfect world, sure
Quit pretending minimum standards of decency are aspirations of perfection. Neither of these two men are qualified to handle slip-and-fail cases, much less adjudicate constitutional law.
Trump admin only hires based on soul selling loyalty. Thats the only criteria. They will make shit up and excussss to avoid anything but butt sniffing loyalty
Hoodiyeehaw
Contrary to popular belief, the hood and the holler have a great deal in common, but only one of them votes and if the other did I’m afraid they would be too racist to be of any help.
Meanwhile, entry level workers are being rejected after interview number five and a full proctology exam.
Have those workers tried being friends with rich people?
Ahh, good idea. I think I have the excerpt from our handy guide on how to be friends with rich people:
Step 1
Be rich.
I’ll have you know the proctology exam is a “task-based” exam that you administer to yourself on a shared google doc and webcam, and I scored fist out of elbow.
The only cope I have left is telling myself that all these dumb fucks have left the door wide open for commie mommy AOC to come in and lead us into the glorious revolutionary future. "BUT THAT JUDGE ISN'T QUALIFIED" the right screeches, as AOC smirks and says "they've read their theory, comrade. Have you?"
Lol AOC isn’t even extreme left. But given her online persona, I imagine she’d find the moniker “commie mommy” endlessly useful.
Look, woker. Qualifications are just a hindrance to an automatic rubber stamp for the executive, the king if you will. How can we smash existing rules and laws and fast track our own that are antithetical to America if pesky lawyers and judges who went to woke colleges perpetuate the existing laws which totally don’t exist? How are we able to still allow a serial abuser to abuse those he lords over if all your DEI leftist CRT laws are in the way?