this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
16 points (100.0% liked)

politics

25050 readers
1984 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
 

The Supreme Court was hit by a flurry of damaging new leaks Sunday as a series of confidential memos written by the chief justice were revealed by The New York Times.

The court’s Chief Justice John Roberts was clear to his fellow justices in February: He wanted the court to take up a case weighing Donald Trump’s right to presidential immunity—and he seemed inclined to protect the former president.

“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” Roberts wrote to his Supreme Court peers, according to a private memo obtained by the *Times. *He was referencing the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to allow the case to move forward.

Roberts took an unusual level of involvement in this and other cases that ultimately benefited Trump, according to the Times— his handling of the cases surprised even some other justices on the high court, across ideological lines. As president, Trump appointed three of the members of its current conservative supermajority.

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Hey guys I know it’s wild but there might be some corruption going on in the Supreme Court.

[–] Cringedrif@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Lucky for us there is a system of checks and....oh wait...

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Bribery. Checks and bribery.

[–] mriguy@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

A system of checks and money orders. And cash.

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

And luxury vacations. And forgiven "loans." And property purchased as "gifts." And free flights on private jets. And...

These fuckers. These absolutely amoral fuckers.

[–] Avatar_of_Self@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Bank checks and account balances.

[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

A solid line you got there.

[–] Diva@lemmy.ml -1 points 10 months ago

The supreme court makes a mockery of democracy (intentionally) and should be treated with scorn instead of reverence.

[–] pubquiz@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I'd like to take a moment to remind y'all that Clarence "I'm For Sale" Thomas turned down a FREE RV offered by Last Week Tonight. So he's not corrupt. He's selective.

Let's wait and see how he votes on repealing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

I'm sure he'll vote his conscience

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

but he already has a free RV,

[–] YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think Oliver also offered him $1 million a year from Oliver’s personal moneys. Which is not an insignificant amount of money for a justice who isn’t corrupt.

[–] nul9o9@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

In the past, he signaled he'd retire because he wasn't getting paid enough, meaning he needed to be bribed to keep a conservative justice on the SCOTUS.

If you take it at face value, then he should have jumped at John Olivers' offer.

[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Why take a bribe from John Oliver, who would immediately turn around and disclose that Thomas accepted it on his television program, when he could just go ask Daddy Harlan Crow for an identical RV and then not disclose it?

The Supreme Court is corrupt to the core. There's an inability to hold them accountable for anything. The system of checks and balances functionally doesn't exist for this "apolitical" branch.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I say..."And?"

Like anything will come of it.

[–] rsuri@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” Roberts wrote to his Supreme Court peers, according to a private memo obtained by the Times.

That's all the Times is gonna give us? One sentence of a memo relating to one of the most questionable Supreme Court decisions of all time? The voters should know everything about how they got to this decision.

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Yeah that's not even enough for me to know if it's controversial. I, also, think SCOTUS will have different opinions on separation of powers.

[–] DirkMcCallahan@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I am shocked...shocked to find corruption going on in the Supreme Court!

[–] ganksy@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I'm shocked that they kept the records of the corruption

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm GLAD that these LAWMAKERS are UNELECTED and Appointed for a LIFETIME!

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Term limits won't help with systemic corruption, because replacing corrupt judges with new corrupt judges would be the natural response.

Enshrining impeachment as a regular and viable strategy for actual corruption would be.

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 10 months ago