SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion) III: Abandoning 90 Years of Precedent

[kuronosan]

Corruption? No way

[archibaldcrane]

Clarence Thomas's benefactor enjoys collecting Nazi memorabilia.

https://twitter.com/PatBlanchfield/s...BopAuCZnw&s=19

[Fondue]

I think they look cool

[Tyrath]

Of course you do

[thetruepandagod]

they do tho no cap

[Emphasis]

Idk, a personal garden of dictator statues along with everything else is awfully weird.

[Yabby]

[Zealot]

Where did Harlan Crow buy all this Nazi stuff from? Because like, Occam's Razor says if you want to buy lots of Nazi stuff, you get it from Nazis.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

Of course you do

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking this.

[archibaldcrane]

Where did Harlan Crow buy all this Nazi stuff from? Because like, Occam's Razor says if you want to buy lots of Nazi stuff, you get it from Nazis.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

All I know is his brother has been doing a bit of the ol human trafficking

https://dallasexpress.com/national/t...f%2012%20years.

[mallister]

supreme court tells shitty for-profit colleges to pound sand, refuses to stop $6B settlement

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-supreme...201629223.html

[archibaldcrane]

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/16...IyEr-0LAg&s=19

Genuine question: is the Supreme Court like the presidency, where it is "generally understood" that they cannot be charged with crimes while in office other than through impeachment proceedings?

[Gredival]

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/16...IyEr-0LAg&s=19

Genuine question: is the Supreme Court like the presidency, where it is "generally understood" that they cannot be charged with crimes while in office other than through impeachment proceedings?

I feel there is a norm against it, but are not covered under the same rationale that protects the President

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

I remember hearing about one Justice who resigned due to an ethics scandal but this would have been probably 50 or 60 years ago.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Mrbeansman]

Just more proof that the founders had a severe lack of foresight to partisan politics fatally crippling parts of the system.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Meresgi]

I remember hearing about one Justice who resigned due to an ethics scandal but this would have been probably 50 or 60 years ago.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

The only time that would happen nowadays is a "liberal" judge doing it while a republican is president because of brain worms and "taking the high road", though that wouldn't happen really either because these old fucks won't even bail out when there's the opportunity for the current demo prez to appoint someone in their place, just look at Feinstein and all of the court shit being held up because her mummified ass.

[Gredival]

Just more proof that the founders had a severe lack of foresight to partisan politics fatally crippling parts of the system.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

The founding fathers all argued against political parties. The endurance of them, and particularly of two parties, speaks to the fact they are the natural response to the specific design of the American system.

[archibaldcrane]

Yes

But also ~every democracy also has political parties

[Zealot]

Next democracy, no parties. Every one for themselves.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

Just more proof that the founders had a severe lack of foresight to partisan politics fatally crippling parts of the system.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

They didn't lol. It only looks like a lack of foresight if you hold the view of American exceptionalism literally.
The country was made by and for white land owning men. The emerging merchant class, gentry, and overall driving factors of founding the Union did so in their own material interest. That's why the Stamp Act and shit motivated people to rebel. That's why the Federalist vs Antifederalists debates were so prominent. That's why the government struggled to tax people afterwards. Britain was also industrializing and moving past the primitive accumulation of slavery. Which helped ensure the participation of the southern colonies vis Madison, Jefferson, etc.

The founders were members of political parties. They weren't fucking morons that didn't consider them. The country was founded on freedom. The freedom of a select class to set their own rules of taxation, the freedom to keep slaves, the freedom of the privileged to do business without the government getting in their way. The same way the bourgeoise don't want to pay taxes or be subject to regulations, unions, etc today. Freedom to have political parties of land owning men set the rules of the game they have an interest in. It wasn't some noble sacrifice in pure ideology. This is was the course it was set to run from the start. The country just feeds itself Kim Jong Un levels of propaganda and emphasizes away from the underlying nature of it's history to today.