politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That hateful cunt just won't go away...
And never forget Joe Biden is the reason Clarence Thomas is even on the bench.
When Joe talked about how "we all used to get along" he means when Republicans pretended to like him so he'd be their useful idiot.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/441408-timeline-a-history-of-the-joe-biden-anita-hill-controversy/
Here’s the thing I never understood about Thomas. You know they wouldn’t stop with same-sex marriage and eventually go for interracial marriage. Is he just playing the long game of wanting an annulment or does he not think that’ll happen?
It's not just him, lots of minorities think they won't be subject to the consequences because "they're one of the good ones".
Hell, Biden isn't a minority but he's a Dem, and he was constantly surprised from 2008 to today that republicans stopped treating him different than other Dems the second they no longer needed him.
Republicans will drop Thomas just as fast as they dropped Biden when he's not needed.
Like, none of this is new, it's the same as the guy who wrote "first they came for" when the Nazis were in power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_They_Came
Tgere's a term for that: "pickme" girls and boys.
Specifically for the marriage issues, it's likely that any existing ones would remain intact and only the new ones would be subject to the ruling. Also, it would likely be a "give it to the states" kind of thing, and since Thomas lives in Virginia he probably wouldn't have to worry about it anyways.
The state of Virginia is literally the defendant in the interracial marriage supreme court case. Loving v Virginia
9 Republican Senators voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, 5 voted for Elena Kagan, and 3 voted for Ketanji Brown Jackson, which was necessary to grant her a majority.
Apart from McConnell refusing to bring Garland up for a vote, parties have been confirming their opposition's nominees for decades.
You can make specific arguments for why Thomas was unfit due to harassment accusations, but merely not blocking new Justices from appointment because they hold ideologies of the party nominating them has long been the standard.
You can push for someone less ideological than Bork, but don't fault people for working together in the past to keep the government functional.
Ok...
Did you read that link and your take away was that Biden just voted for Clarence?
It's ok if you did t already know how involved Biden was, I mean, I guess it is, it's come up a lot since his last election...
But the link's right there bro.
If you read it, and that was seriously you're take away tho...
I don't know how I can explain it in a way that would be any different. Like, I can't simplify it anymore than that article does, that's why I linked it.
I think you just didn't even click it, let alone read it, and that's the most charitable interpretation of your comment.
But essentially:
Thomas was a serial sexual abuser, and Biden swept it under the rug.
Normalizing that behavior (and worse) for futer SC picks. Thomas was the begining of the end for the SC, and Biden is why he ever made it there.