this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2025
449 points (99.1% liked)

politics

25949 readers
2571 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Justice Clarence Thomas is finding increasingly creative ways to justify reshaping long-standing laws.

During a rare appearance at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, the George H.W. Bush–appointed justice said the Supreme Court should take a more critical approach to settled precedent, arguing that decided cases are not “the gospel,” ABC News reported.

Thomas, 77, compared his Supreme Court colleagues to passengers on a train, and said: ”We never go to the front to see who’s driving the train, where is it going. And you could go up there in the engine room, find it’s an orangutan driving the train, but you want to follow that just because it’s a train.”

He reasoned that some precedents were simply “something somebody dreamt up and others went along with.”

(page 2) 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Aljernon@lemmy.today 5 points 1 week ago

When the US constitution was written, it was assumed they didn't have to spell out exactly how the judiciary would work because the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition was over a millennia old without getting written down (predating statute law) but apparently that assumption was wrong.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I really need to make a version of this gif that has dollar signs on the glasses

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't care what his bullshit reasons are

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 3 points 1 week ago

I do

Thomas, 77, compared his Supreme Court colleagues to passengers on a train, and said: ”We never go to the front to see who’s driving the train, where is it going. And you could go up there in the engine room, find it’s an orangutan driving the train, but you want to follow that just because it’s a train.”

What the fuck does that even mean? Does he not understand how trains work? Why are the supreme Court the passengers?

I have so many questions

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago

Im sure in the rulings he won't give any explanation at all. Every time no explanation is given I assume the explanation is because fuck the people and the constitution that was built around the principle of power coming from it.

[–] AmericanEconomicThinkTank@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Cash in pocket doesn't seem to be a very bonkers reason to me.

Wrong? Sure. Foolish? Absolutely. Short-sighted? No doubt.

But bonkers? Who wouldn't sell their fellow man out for a few extra bucks? Hell, a nice new RV sure sounds nice, maybe a vacation to go along with it.

[–] StepUp2DaStreets@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I really wish he would've taken the John Oliver deal for that sexy beast of an RV to retire... oh well. Here we are

[–] Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago

What it must be like to be a reptile in a human skin.

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago

Again... Personal limo plane with jacuzzi and pool but this time legal 21y pool ladies in bikini. The plane's name is probably the "bonkers"

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›