this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
341 points (98.6% liked)

News

22561 readers
3775 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The conservative justice was not present for oral arguments on Monday, but the court did not provide a reason why.

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was not present at the court for oral arguments on Monday, with the court giving no reason for his absence.

Chief Justice John Roberts said in court that Thomas “is not on the bench today” but would "participate fully" in the two cases being argued based on the briefs and transcripts.

A court spokeswoman had no further information.

Thomas, 75, is the eldest of the nine justices. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I hear this opinion a lot, and I always ask what specifically would you have them do? They don't control the house, so if they can't get Republicans to go along they can't pass any legislation. That's just reality.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/16/politics/immigration-senate-democrats-parliamentarian-build-back-better/index.html

I'm sorry, but the Republicans would have fucking just steamrolled the parliamentarian, and the fact that the Democrats wouldn't shows their milquetoast, waffling, ineffectual cowardice.

This is just one of many examples where they are unwilling to fight when and where it matters.


We could also talk about the recent immigration bill, a bill that hands Republicans exactly what they want in respect to immigration, a bill that basically says "Fuck them DREAMers" that the Democrats leaned on so hard in the last few election cycles. I get that the immigration bill was paired with Ukraine aid as a "poison pill" to get it passed, but there's the rub: is passing bad legislation because Republicans want it and we think it's the only way to get "good legislation" passed really the best solution if it leaves us with bad legislation as law?

I think it's pretty straightforwardly fuckin clear that it is not in our best interests to hand them whatever they want when it comes to their LIES about the border and immigration. But what do I know, I guess I must just be talking out of my ass or something. Give me a break.


There was also the unwillingness to prosecute Bush & Cheney for war crimes. "We need to look forward, not backward." Why do you think they are so hesitant to prosecute Trump? They didn't want to prosecute war crimes when it came to Bush & Cheney.

I could keep going...


Democrats have literally spent my entire adult life PRETENDING that Republicans are operating in good faith when every available piece of evidence screams bloody murder that the Republicans are not acting in good faith.

Why do we keep praising Democrats for trying to shake hands with people who keep kicking them in the balls?

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

I'm sorry, but the Republicans would have fucking just steamrolled the parliamentarian, and the fact that the Democrats wouldn't shows their milquetoast, waffling, ineffectual cowardice.

So they should have violated the rules of the Senate? They have a razor thin majority, 48 Dems and 3 independents. You would need all of them to be willing to violate the Senate rules to pass immigration as a reconciliation bill.

We could also talk about the recent immigration bill

So you go from being upset that they didn't try to pass an immigration bill to upset that they did. The Democrats negotiated with Republicans to achieve one of two outcomes, either the Republicans go along with it and it removes the issue from the election or the Republicans torpedo it and they go into the election season having been given everything they wanted and refused it. It's gamesmanship.

There was also the unwillingness to prosecute Bush & Cheney for war crimes.

And what court exactly would have allowed the destruction of presidential immunity for official presidential acts? The correct answer is none.

Democrats have literally spent my entire adult life PRETENDING that Republicans are operating in good faith when every available piece of evidence screams bloody murder that the Republicans are not acting in good faith.

Who has claimed this? The Republicans have become a party of obstructionism. They do not care if the government functions. That means they aren't willing to compromise and they will use every lever of government to sabotage any work done.

If the Republicans control either chamber of the legislature, nothing can get done. If there is a republican president, nothing will get done. Your solutions are ill conceived and don't address reality. If you just want to be angry, go ahead. Throw in a "both sides are the same" while you're at it. I prefer pragmatism and reality.

[–] PapaStevesy@midwest.social -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I don't know, I'm not a lifelong politician or law expert. But c'mon, they are! Do some fucking politicking! I find it beyond reason that there was nothing they could do, but also nothing they could do to stop Trump. As far as I care, Obama just gave it away for absolutely nothing. They didn't fight it because they thought Hilary would win and now we're just legally fucked for decades.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So you are completely ignorant as to how Congress functions, but you're also somehow positive they could have done something? That's such confused thinking. Perhaps figure out what could have been done before complaining that it wasn't done.

[–] PapaStevesy@midwest.social -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They could have "convinced" Mitch McConnell not to block the nomination by any thousands of legal, illegal, and extra-legal means. All I'm saying is, when corporate America is in trouble, it truly seems like anything is possible. When actual American lives are at stake, they just shrug and bemoan the rules they're in charge of making and enforcing.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They could have "convinced" Mitch McConnell not to block the nomination by any thousands of legal, illegal, and extra-legal means.

No, they couldn't.

All I'm saying is, when corporate America is in trouble, it truly seems like anything is possible.

Yes, because Democrats want to help people, and Republicans only care about ultra wealthy people and corporations. Corporate America is the overlap in this particular Venn diagram.

When actual American lives are at stake, they just shrug and bemoan the rules they're in charge of making and enforcing.

Republicans do that and block help. See Republicans with the recent bridge collapse all the way back to super storm Sandy.

[–] PapaStevesy@midwest.social 0 points 4 months ago

No they couldn't.

Good one. What your argument fails to take into account is yes they could.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Hillary literally had a strategy to elevate Donald Trump in the primaries because she thought he would be easier to beat than Geb Bush, who is who she (incorrectly) assumed she would be up against.

I think people really underestimate how pissed people were that we were about to have another Bush v. Clinton match up and didn't want political dynasties.

Of course, the people most angry about it seemingly voted in a man who wants nothing but to create his own endless political dynasty of the Dictatorship variety.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Geb Bush?

Please clap.