• Hazdaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    179
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    He’s not resigning from a position that is a lifetime appointment.

    So sick of hearing these moronic articles.

    Either get the goddamn Department of Justice or IRS involved in this and see if these trips and other gifts were illegal, or STFU. Yes, we all know he’s a corrupt piece of shit, but he’s not resigning, and it sure as hell doesn’t look like any governmental departments even want to try going after him for corruption.

    • HuddaBudda@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      124
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      These “Moronic articles” places him into the spotlight.

      There is very few things that can be considered an “Annoyance” to rich folk, being in that spotlight is one of them.

      People like Clarence Thomas want to go on vacation and not worry about being recognized in public.

      Being in the spotlight means they have to hire more security, it means background checks, it means more people in your private life, it means always looking over your shoulder because the “media” is everyone with a smart phone nowadays.

      So while I would love to see less topics on Clarence Thomas that doesn’t involve a jail cell. The attention on his shadiness, is the 2nd best for now.

    • BossDj@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately, you are not the target audience for this article.

      Most Americans are not informed at all, and no matter how stupid it may seem, they need the most watered down solution shoved in their face repeatedly just so they recognize the problem in the first place

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Based on how often he and Alito are crying out about his unfair it is that they’re being scrutinized for corruption, I think this is really bugging them.

      • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Believe me, I hope to hell you’re right, but when it comes down to it, it seems like wishful thinking from the Internet.

  • _number8_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    91
    ·
    1 year ago

    is it SO fucking insane that we all know he’s corrupt but he’s still able to go to work and put on his fucking robe and ruin people’s lives and we’re meant to keep respecting that. fucking dogshit country

    • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      The GOP spent the last 2 decades getting to an overwhelming 6-3 majority on the court. They won’t risk that over something they find as superfluous as integrity.

    • evatronic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We are rapidly approaching a point where the SCOTUS can rule and states, or even the federal government will simply… ignore it.

      I’m not sure which party will cross that line, but we’re real close. And when it happens, we almost immediately devolve into an epic shitstorm.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        We have already reached that point. You’ve got Democratic-majority states that, despite Bruen, continue to pass legislation banning firearm types and features. Just like Republican states pass bans on abortions and birth control when Roe was still good case law. This shit happens all the time, and SCOTUS keeps working and slapping states and the fed. gov’t down.

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Dissolve the court. Arrest Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh. Bring in an independent investigator and if any of the others have so much as gotten a ride to their car from someone with business before the court arrest them too. No more “well it’s only a little bit corrupt” or “yeah but you’ve gotta understand” or that horse shit. You want your word to be the literal law that almost 400 million people have to live under? You need to be fucking flawless.

    • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      While I agree with the sentiment, there’s technically no laws against the corruption. You can’t just arrest people because you don’t agree with them and think they’re immoral. Do that and imagine what a republican regime will do with that ability.

      • underisk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because an unelected council of lifetime appointed politically motivated actors who can arbitrarily decide whether democratically instilled laws are valid on a case by case basis is fundamentally stupid and obviously prone to corruption.

        • marmo7ade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Also because there is no legal construct that gives SCOUTS the specific powers it currently wields. Article 3 of the US constitution is an outline that lacks specifics. The federal government decided SCOTUS would rule on case law without encoding it in law. It was a subjective decision. We can make another subjective decision.

          • underisk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just the Supreme Court, thanks. Though I’m not super happy about those lesser courts being lifetime appointments either, so maybe they could do with some reform instead. We can always revisit those later, call it incremental improvement.

            • minorninth@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              But the Supreme Court is part of the whole system of appeals courts. They all have lifetime appointments. It makes no sense. You’d just be giving regional judges more power and the country would have even more stark divided across state lines.

              • underisk@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                So you did read the part where I said that I’m not happy about the lesser courts being lifetime appointments? Why does it matter if the Supreme Court is part of the appellate court system? There are federal courts of appeal beneath the SC so idk how you think that’d be shifting more power into regional courts. And even if it did, so what? Breaking up concentrated sources of power is good, not bad.

          • underisk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s nothing to salvage, it should not exist. Whatever you could make of it out of reforms wouldn’t be worth the trouble. What function does it perform that is so vital it cannot be removed?

              • underisk@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The role of the judicial can be fulfilled with lesser courts without the overreach provided by the SC; they’re meant to interpret and enforce, not invalidate.

                You don’t need a lifetime appointment for a long term view of the law, it’s not as if politicians in other branches retire after their terms or don’t serve as many terms as possible. The possibility of churn is, in theory, meant to keep those branches beholden to their constituents. Even that’s often insufficient to prevent corruption, but at least it’s something.

      • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ll get downvoted for supporting your question in seek of an answer. Why dissolve the Supreme Court? Can reform not work? If you dissolve the Supreme Court then what is the proposed alternative?

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    1 year ago

    And Clarence Thomas’ response is that the American Mullahs can do whatever they like and there’s fuck all anyone can do about it.

    • Halafax@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except stay awake while hearing cases at the country’s top court. Thomas likes his naps as much as he likes his billionaire patrons.

      • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah the way the media works, he realistically just has to keep a low profile for maybe a year or even less, wait for them to fixate on something else and then it’s back to business.

        And he’s pretty much immune to any legal blowback - if anyone tried, I mean he’s 75, in his position he could easily jam that up in the courts for a decade or more and even if it somehow managed to progress, there’s the classic “I’m suddenly too old and frail to go through a lengthy trial” defence.

        I think realistically the absolute worst case scenario for him is being forced to retire and spending the rest of his days in opulence anyway. I don’t like it but that’s probably how it is.

        • DrPop@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Didn’t the chief justice decide not to do an investigation for corruption, because reasons? It’s basically the same when cops investigate themselves.

  • dynamojoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    1 year ago

    He won’t resign because the bar to remove him is too great. Now if they prosecuted him for tax evasion, that could get him off the bench before he dies.

  • profdc9@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Now that Thomas’s image can not get any worse, he’s just going to become more overt about trying to destroy the US government from the bench. That’s all that will happen.

  • Pratai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    Requesting him to resign is the same thing as asking cancer to just… please leave.

  • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I skimmed the title and saw “Clarence Thomas resigns over calls […]” and my first thought was “I can’t believe it took this long.”

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unless there are dramatic political reforms, you’ll be waiting the rest of his life.

      You can’t shame him out of office. If he felt shame, he wouldn’t have taken so many bribes in the first place.

      It’s why lifetime appointments to powerful positions are a stupid idea.

  • Metriximor@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why would he resign? Like really why would he do it. You can’t force him to, his time won’t run out and corpos and lobbying will never let any sort of political entity take him from his place.

    Dude is there until death you can cry all you want but he’s not leaving.

    I will gladly be wrong about this btw but I know i probably won’t.

  • lntl@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    he won’t resign unless he is compelled by the law or court order. there are too many people who have invested in him for him to just walk away.

      • jasondj@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, he could be impeached. Simple majority in the house and 2/3 in the senate though, iirc. Don’t see that happening any time soon.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Republicans hold the house for now, so that’s absolutely not happening, esp. since the poorly-name “Freedom Caucus” would immediately move to remove McCarthy if he even brought it to the floor for a vote.