• assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Imagine the outcry if instead this was a liberal justice at a Soros donor event. You’d have so many antisemitic dog whistles that it would attract every canine in the tristate area.

    I really don’t understand how anyone who likes logical consistency can tolerate Republicans. The hypocrisy is mind boggling.

      • DrDeadCrash@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        … An “in group” that is protected by laws but not bound by them and an “out group” that is bound by the laws but not protected by them.

        This is a (paraphrased) description of the conservative world-view that I saw the other day (sorry I don’t remember who to attribute) here on Lemmy. Anyway it sure seems to track with their hypocrisy.

      • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The missing bit of context to make it logically consistent is that they think we all live in a hierarchy (social, class, gender, race etc) in which the rules apply differently to folks lower in it than they do to folks above them.

        If you accept that as your premise, everything about their behavior is logically consistent- except for the part about inventing a magical hierarchy that only exists in their agreement that it does, in which they are your superiors and it is their right to tell you what to do but never vice-versa.

        If you look at it in this light, when they howl at democrats for breaking rules they don’t think apply to republicans, they aren’t invoking anything like a set of shared rules applying to everyone, they’re invoking the hierarchy and they think they’re putting people in their rightful places (never mind that it’s colossally arrogant and entitled to assume you’re here to rule over your inferiors when there’s no agreement that anyone here is anyone’s superior)

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          There always has to be a bigger fish

          I recommend the youtube series “The Alt-Right Playbook”

          It suddenly makes Conservative Ideology make sense, not in that it’s a good ideology mind you, but it makes it easy to understand why they are the way they are… What goes through their heads…

          They see the world very differently from the rest of us.

          I hate having to resort to “Us/Them”, but they made the game that way, not us… Yes I’m aware of the irony of that statement.

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

          To add to this, the GOP are the smart ones who know how to acquire power. The capability to gain the office is what qualifies them for it.

          Do you want the smart people to lead, or do you want the ones who wring their hands about the rules?

          My response to this would be the Douglas Adams idea, anyone who wants to lead that badly should in no way be allowed to do so.

    • Danc4498@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      As long as I’ve paid attention to politics, republicans have been massive hypocrites and have not give a damn when called out.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s why “They go low, we go high” has always been a joke and I was shocked when Obama was serious and not just “saying that”… That’s the kind of naivety that we don’t need in a battle against Right Wing Fascists

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

      It’s because in the heavily divided Senate, there is no way he would be removed, and failing to remove him after impeachment would be taken as tacit approval of his corruption.

      Democrats are just not touching that with a ten foot pole.

  • TheJims@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    He needs to permanently recuse himself from every case ever. This guy is a fucking mockery of the American Justice System.

    • lobut@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      He won’t because he knows he’s hurting the libs. Man this is extremely depressing.

    • DarkGamer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Republicans have to give a shit about ethics and the rule of law first, or be voted out. I wouldn’t hold my breath.

      • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Eleventh Commandment was a phrase used by President of the United States Ronald Reagan during his 1966 campaign for Governor of California. The Commandment reads:

        Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.

      • chaogomu@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Ken Paxton thing is especially telling. He was impeached by Republicans, but the second the impeachment started generating national coverage, they backed off and said it was fine.

        • esadatari@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          ken paxton is a slimy little cunt that shouldn’t be underestimated. i have no doubt behind closed doors he pulled every dirty trick in the book. this is the kind of person that finds and keeps dirt on anyone that might try to destroy him.

          and when you have 2/3 the politicians in your pocket, it’s easy to strong arm enough of the other 1/3 to stfu and keep their heads down.

          it wasn’t like republicans saw the limelight was on the case and decided to play nice. quite the opposite. the reps that started this whole fight are establishment republicans trying to get their party in the people’s good graces enough to save their fucking party in 2024.

          the dumbass think tanks don’t get that (or rather, think they can work with that) and have been performing actions that add nail after nail into their coffin.

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

        I mean, let’s be honest here - none of the gifts, favors, or special treatment Thomas has received has changed his decisions. He was always going to pick the most reactionary, oligarch-friendly position. No one has ever said, “The court looks pretty split on this issue, and Clarence Thomas may be the deciding vote.”

        If you’re going to bribe a Justice or try to sway the Court, you pick a moderate. You don’t pay the Kool-Aid Man to charge through walls, it’s just what he does.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I stopped waiting for King Louie to “Say the thing” that gets his head lopped off…

      For the record I’m speaking in metaphor, this is in no way a threat or call to arms.

  • carl_dungeon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s no secret, he’s a member of that whole party. I’d be actually surprised if someone proved he didn’t.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Team Red controls the house, and the house would have to be the body to start impeachment hearings. Why would Team Red remove a judge who is being bribed by Ream Red backers and decides cases in favor of Team Red?

      The US “checks and balances” system was never designed to deal with this kind of problem.

      • IamRoot@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The executive and legislative branches can act.

        The House has a narrow margin and the rules of the house are subject to change. The “Speaker” is weak and that can be used as leverage.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The executive can’t do anything. Half the legislative branch is controlled by Team Red. Team Red would have to be willing to hand a loss to Team Red for there to be any accountability. A weak leader is going to be much less willing than a strong leader to hand a loss to Team Red because it would be the end of his leadership, so without an election handing over control of 2/3 of the government to Team Blue, there can be no accountability.

          And, even then, with the majorities required for impeachment and removal, you’d have to convince a significant fraction of Team Red to defect and take a loss, when they can avoid a loss by just holding the line.

          The US system’s checks and balances are broken and unable to deal with this scenario.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not setting a limit on the number of Supreme Court judges was an oversight, not a clever trick they came up with to allow the executive to collude with the senate to put an unlimited number of judges on the Supreme Court.

          • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, it wasn’t. They were not stupid, and this is really gonna blow your mind:

            They can also reduce the number of judges instead of just letting it baloon infinitely.

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure, but you can’t remove a judge except by impeachment. So, if you said the supreme court was now 3 judges you’d effectively be getting rid of judges without using impeachment. Whether that’s legal or not would probably be decided in court, which would get challenged all the way up to… the supreme court.

              • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The law is clear, a Justice can only be removed through impeachment. If Congress were to reduce the total number of seats as has happened a few times historically there simply would not be a new Justice appointed after one passes or resigns.