News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.
view the rest of the comments
There's pretty much zero oversight for a supreme court justice, right? I'm kinda surprised he didn't just lynch a few brown and/or gay people in his front yard because doing so would have equal consequence - none.
In theory he can be impeached.
In practice, he can't be impeached.
While I get what you mean, they aren't immune to prosecution for acts outside of their role. He would hopefully still get arrested and charged for lynching people. (Hopefully)
Tried, convicted, appealed all the way up to his own court, conviction overturned.
I mean, his fellow judges might be corrupt enough to do so, but he couldn't sit on the judging panel for that.
Could he not? I'm genuinely interested, because I was under the impression that there wasn't anything that could force the justices to recuse themselves.
Anything that could directly effect them financially or if there is a reason that could cause bias is really when they are supposed to recuse. He lied and said his wife's actions in Jan 6 didn't effect his judgement on that case but no one could accept murder charges not effecting him financially in any way.
But Clarence Thomas accepted gifts from people who then argued in front of the Supreme Court without recusing himself without facing any consequences, so is there anything to stop it?
I understand how you could compare the two situations but I can also see how they can lie about the gift being unrelated, where them being the charged being prosecuted can't really lie his way out of showing up. Also, it would look ridiculous for him to walk back and forth across the room, he'd need a rolly chair.
They don't recuse themselves if their wife was part of an insurrection and there are no consequences for that.
Couldn't he? What rule prevents him? Like, it's the most obvious situation ever where he shouldn't be allowed to, but it's there an actual law somewhere saying so?
He'd get a blanket pardon for the duration of his appointment to that date. It wouldn't even go to trial.
Oh please... Lol
In practice they are immune.
What was the case where charges were brought for lynching someone against a supreme Court judge? I must have missed that one
With the current state of American politics I would expect the following to happen:
Oh ,don't worry.
We asked them if they need oversight. And every single SC judge said there's no reason any of them need oversight.
Which is apparently enough to convince moderates Dems that we don't need to do anything
The bill went along party lines out of committee, 11 Democrats in favor 10 Republicans against.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/senate-panel-set-vote-us-supreme-court-ethics-reform-2023-07-20/
Dead due on arrival though, due to unanimous republican opposition in both the senate and house (controlled by Republicans). Even if you wanted to argue for Democrats overturning the filibuster or something, it still wouldn't solve the issue of the house. Anyways the point is, republicans are far more of a problem for judicial reform than your "moderate dems."
Shh. You're ruining their bOtH SiDeS narrative with inconvenient facts!
Wouldn't that have to be an act of Congress, which is not controlled by the "moderates Dems"
You think "making SC justices accountable" wouldn't get more Dems elected?
FDR was progressive enough and voters knew he was trying to help, that people got him that kind of supermajority.
Granted, the "moderate" Dems still stopped him from passing universal healthcare 80 years ago, but at that point voters would have eventually replaced them.
Instead the "moderates" took power and convinced voters trying is pointless, and now they pretend to be surprised when turnout is bad.
That's kind of the whole rub with "moderate" Dems. They have to walk a right rope where just enough people are politically engaged to beat Republicans, but not so many that theres no excuse for not doing shit.
It's like when that NBA guy was betting for his team to win, but not beat the spread. So he'd make "mistakes" in the game and fake injuries.
You lose more when you're not trying to win by as much as you can. But if you get more money (campaign donations from billionaires and corporations) it's what you care more about than if the team gets a W.
"You think "making SC justices accountable" wouldn't get more Dems elected?"
Not sure where you got that from? I was just saying the Dems don't control the house, and the house would have to make those accountability guidelines.
Is Dem leadership out there on the bully pulpit talking about how many more seats we need and where we should focus?
No?
They're not? They just stopped talking about?
Like, this shit is literally what party leaders are supposed to be doing, instead Hakeem Jefferies are Chuck Schumer are running around talking about how funding Israel's genocide is so important and painting peaceful protesters as the real villains. As is Biden.
The president and Dem leaders in the Senate and House don't represent the priorities of their voters.
Oh this guy again. Yeah, it’s all the Democrats’ fault. Every time, for everything.