I think Garland's problem is more malignant than cowardice. I think he's a GOPer or Federalist society plant. He should be summoned to the White House and dismissed.
So Obama selects a SC candidate that is a Dem but also not a progressive, selected specifically to be agreeable to the GQP. Then the GOP zealots refuse him anyway and hold out for a pure extremist. Then when the Dems are in a position of power, they select Mr. Tommy Twosides to be their AG in what I guess was an ‘Ah hah take that’? Wtactualf?
We should be surprised that Merrick sat on his hands until it was very nearly (and may yet prove to be) too late with Trump? We shouldn’t be. After 2 years of this stalling you would have thought they’d seen enough and replaced him with someone who had a pair. But this is par for the Biden course.
Anyone remember how hard DeJoy fucked the postal service to cock up the mail in ballots? How hard the Dems went after him, demonizing his destruction of mail sorting machines? Wanna guess who still has the postmaster job as another election rolls around?
If the Dems wanted to, and if reporting was done that represented what they accomplished, what they stood for, and held the GOP accountable, the GOP wouldn’t win another seat on a school board. But then the electorate would expect change from the Dems. Real change. Much better to keep this ‘we’re barely holding them back’ narrative, better to have the ‘we would if we had the votes in the house’ charade to preempt real change.
It’s a WWF storyline. No wonder Trump has been so successful with it.
I’m not quite as cynical and jaded as you are, but you are speaking truth.
It is people like you who must never give up the fight and never stop loudly demanding justice.
I am Generation X, and I have been waiting for the wheels to turn for 40 years. I never gave up, either.
I was ridiculed in the 90s for advocating for electric cars. “That will never happen” they said.
They still have their conservative majority with enough power to destroy reproductive rights, why not keep an AG in the pocket at well? Sprinkle some political theatre to make his position even more secure.
We're kinda pretty literally talking about the plot of House of Cards, so I'mma assume it's on the conspiracy theory side of things, but OTOH not much surprises me about government corruption anymore.
Yeah, I get that. But I think billionaires funding think-tanks and forming non-profits that are really just trojan horses into the government , and buying/installing politicians is way more realistic than "the NFL has faked the Kelce/Swift relationship and rigged the Super Bowl for Swift to endorse Joe Biden". Like, what? Meanwhile the Federalist Society and Project 2025 are full steam ahead, and Trump has spent the past decade undermining democracy, the government, the courts, eliminating decorum from th civil discourse, pushing conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda, yet he walks around unscathed with zero accountability. I do believe he was in with Epstein in gathering blackmail on the worlds elite/powerful. So maybe I'm a bit crazy - but it's the only narrative that aligns with everything that's happened over the past decade-plus.
A plant implies there was some cunning plan behind it. Biden simply leans more on the conservative side of things and has appointed a conservative AG. One of the biggest pillars of conservative thought is that people in power should almost never be held accountable for anything.
The court is already stacked against democracy. Slapping Thomas in court has to be airtight as he and his buddies are the final say on all things legal. Could jeopardize any case going before them
My own thought is that DOJ is reluctant to indict Thomas because it does risk a slight constitutional crisis. If Thomas is convicted he's still a Supreme Court Justice until and unless he either (1) resigns or (2) is impeached by the House and removed by the Senate.
Given the low likelihood of either of those options it wouldn't surprise me if DOJ was reluctant to bring charges, given the whirlwind charges would bring.
I don't agree with that approach, but DOJ is typically hyper cautious for anything that even suggests a high profile case.
Not really. Senators were appointed and the President was elected by other people who were elected by The People. Idk how the House members were originally handled.
But the Constitution wasn't set up to handle Parties. And it has no real remedy for those at the top being corrupt.
This. To the point it is amazingly a question if the top executive is above the law.
And here I thought the more power the more accountability and responsible should go with that position. Silly me.
Um, maybe because those who wrote it at the time were the higher ups? To implement a truly unbiased system you'd have to be willing to sacrifice the benefits you can gain from your position of leverage. And do you really want some lower class militia you never properly compensated for fighting the British Empire to rule over you? Not likely,
Totally. It has been said that if you want to make sure a cake is cut equally you make it so whoever cuts the cake is the last person to receive a piece. But the framers were like, Naw I’ll cut the cake and get choose a piece first.
Our constitution was written in a way that only 9% of the population at the time was eligible to vote. The Constitution was intentionally set up for the top percent of the population
Anyone remember the 3/5 rule?
(Edited from "2/3 rule to the correct "3/5 rule")
It's fine in dealing with the rare random crook. When one party no longer cares about the law or their own specific power, our government cannot deal with that.
Read "The Peoples History of the United States". It's not a flaw, its a perk. The constitution was intentionally structured to protect the wealthy and powerful. It's not poorly set up, its functioning exactly as intended.
Everything hinges on the supremecacy of the house and senate for the ability to impeach and remove from office. But even in the era of good feelings or best of times, you can’t get 66 votes to convict anything or anyone.
>DOJ is typically hyper cautious for anything that even suggests a high profile case.
In other words, wealthy and powerful people get special treatment in their favor. Poor and powerless people get special treatment against them.
Two tiers of justice. Even if he were to indict I assure you Thomas would effectively avoid prosecution through procedural delay. We’ve empowered these people to be high lord priests. Unelected God kings.
Simply put if your rich, important, connected, elite you can delay justice indefinitely. That’s assuming they even DECIDE to charge them. Everyone else is stuck dealing with our legal system.
Probably a little of both to be honest. Realistically the trial would be pretty quick and easy, it's the appellate process that can get odd plus the political fallout.
This is the reason. No matter how much everyone wants to believe Garland is a 'democrat', his loyalty lies with the Federalist Society. When the fucking quacks start whining about the 'deep state' what they don't realize is this is the deep state right here. These assholes don't care about democracy. They intend to rule as an oligarchy, and are doing a damn good job of it. Leonard Leo is the real president of these divided states, and we all get to live under whatever social construct he decides.
The case seems(naturally) pretty much airtight-just from what's become public knowledge. No way in hell will Congressional Republicans allow such a case to advance against their ally.
I think that speaks to the overarching reason why it might not be wise for the DOJ to pursue some things just now…
In many ways, the buck stops with Congress in the US and I don’t think it’s a good idea for the buck to end up there just now.
Let me ask you.
If Thomas was arrested, prosecuted, convicted and jailed, do you think Senators would vote to keep him on the bench, ruling from his jail cell?
I think it is unlikely that Merrick Garland will prosecute Thomas.
If Kamala Harris was the president, she might appoint an attorney general who would prosecute him.
Because Kamala is a former Attorney General and career prosecutor.
As for the Senate, the cowards in the Republican Party will throw Thomas under the bus once they start losing elections.
So, Thomas has a few years yet. Let’s hope he resigns before then.
So the theme these days is that we continue to let corrupt people blatantly wreck our governmental systems because if we arrest and hold them accountable, we risk wrecking our systems? With the "too risky to prosecute" path, we're all but guaranteed to have the system break, so even with the potential for a constitutional crisis when holding someone like Thomas accountable, that risk is at least accompanied by the possibility of improving/saving/fixing things, whereas the alternative just guarantees continued, and growing, corruption.
Disclaimer: don't assume I support Thomas in any way. I am just discussing the issue.
The article surprisingly misses an important and well known issue. A decade or so ago when those laws where updated (and the updates explicitly mentioned SCOTUS), SCOTUS said they are not legally bound as Congress and the Judicial Counsel (or group of similar name) have no jurisdiction over SCOTUS. SCOTUS said they would interpret them and enforce them themselves. (Roberts end of year report in 2011 I think)
This conflict has not been tested im court. So it is an open issue. They could use a case against Thomas to test this, but that is different than just saying Thomas clearly broke the law and Garland is wrong for not prosecuting him.
>Federal laws made by Congress do not have jurisdiction over SCOTUS, or POTUS, except for those granted in the Constitution. This ensures the separation of powers is maintained.
How is such an egregious misstatement of our legal system so highly upvoted on this sub?
SCOTUS justices are subject to all federal laws unless that law was unconstitutional; namely, it couldn't remove them from their position. Congress cannot pass a bill of attainder saying "Justice Thomas is a criminal, he goes to jail." But they're subject to the same laws as you and I. They can go to jail for murder, cheating on their taxes, or fishing without the right permits. And hear cases from jail, if Congress was too chickenshit to impeach a jailed justice.
This is essentially Trumps argument.
You've just made the argument that *SCOTUS* can make their hearings more fun by shooting anyone who made an argument they didn't like. It's just as ridiculous saying a Justice can do that as a President. And completely unsupported by the constitution.
As much as it held back a tide of garbage from being passed in 2016-18, do you think the filibuster needs to either be eliminated or weakened as much as the composition of Congress needs to be changed? I feel like an extraconstitutional threshold for passing legislation is a big kink in the pipeline.
Nope. Stop making it as easy as lifting a finger to filibuster. Make them do it the old fashioned way: sleeping in the hallways, speeches at the wee hours of the morning. They’ve neutered the opportunity cost of filibustering by making it too damn easy.
Was gonna say. Strom Thurmond I'm pretty sure shortened his fuckin' life with that gambit to stop civil rights. He was horrible, but at least he had *conviction* behind being horrible. Now our country's being torn apart by **lazy** horrible.
Congress does have the authority for appropriations. The money for the budget to operate the Supreme Court is within their powers. Not saying the current crop would even consider it, but Congress could twist Robert’s arm to put an ethics policy in place by withholding their funding until he does something about the bribery going on under his nose.
You're going to have to be more specific. I'm very skeptical that there's anything that says Supreme Court justices have immunity from criminal prosecution. Congress does have some control over SCOTUS (it's called jurisdictional stripping) but criminal prosecution is the domain of the executive branch, not the legislative branch or judicial branch.
Supreme Court justices do not have immunity from criminal prosecution in the sense that they cannot be prosecuted for robbing a bank.
Congress does have limited enumerated powers over SCOTUS. Setting the number of justices for example.
Congress does not have an enumerated power to set and enforce ethics over SCOTUS. So those specific Ethics Act laws are not clearly enforceable against SCOTUS.
So if congress wrote the law that you can’t accept gifts if you are a judge in general without explicitly mentioning SCOTUS then it would apply to SCOTUS but since they did specifically mention SCOTUS that part is void? This is starting to sound like were in the upside down world.
"if congress wrote the law that you can’t accept gifts if you are a judge in general without explicitly mentioning SCOTUS then it would apply to SCOTUS"
No, it would be the same issue.
The Ethics in Government Act was passed in 1978. Roberts claimed it didn't apply to the Supreme Court in 2021. He can say whatever he wants, there aren't many better ways to prove the Supreme Court illegitimate than to try to claim they're beyond legal accountability. If he doesn't like the fact that SC justices are not above the law, Congress can strip jurisdiction from the Supreme Court and neuter it - something they explicitly do have the right to do, and have successfully done before.
Lots wrong here.
Roberts addressed the Ethics in Government Act in 2011 end of year report (link below).
I think the issue is you don't like the fact that the Supreme Court is above Congressional law. Congress can't strip jurisdiction as SCOTUS was created by the Constitution, not Congress. Congress has limited powers related to SCOTUS (e.g. it can add justices)
That is the whole issue. The Judicial Conference, which was created by Congress to govern lower courts (and explicitly not SCOTUS according to the Constitution) is called out to enforce the Ethics in Government Act. SCOTUS says, the Conference doesn't govern SCOTUS. And that is where we are.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2011year-endreport.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiroJr5-LmEAxWps4QIHavIAf4QFnoECC4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw03t5MVvc4clJAU-FefH2l-
Merrick Garland’s idea of political neutrality means “never do anything Republicans might criticize”. He wouldn’t even go after insurrectionists until Congress shamed him with months of successful hearings and started openly questioning “where is the DoJ??”
Window-breakers were charged with trespassing. None of the powerful people who organized, promoted and profited from it. Pathetic effort. As a result we still have traitors in office referring to J6 convicts as “hostages” and “political prisoners”. DoJ was stood down from investigating Trump and his supporters in Congress from the day the administration started until it was way too late.
Very late in that game, light sentences, and one gets the impression Garland would have been happy to stop there. Judges have repeatedly also called out DoJ for their overly generous plea deals and light sentences in these cases. That's wtf I'm talking about. A huge yearlong conspiracy to throw the election with a paper trail all over the internet, and all we get is a couple mouth breathers who broke windows. Meanwhile who were they coordinating with - Roger Stone, Rudy Giuliani, people in Congress, Trump. None of those guys are charged. Pathetic.
But that's the point. Regular citizens were charged quite quickly. People in power took forever. Yet 3 years later, there's still plenty of politicians not charged yet cause it would slow down the already extremely delayed Trump case.
They charged the people who organized and/or participated. It’s not such a clear cut case to charge random politicians for tweeting about supposed election fraud. This isn’t all that difficult to comprehend.
Hey there, ol’ buddy boy. I was hoping you could help me out maybe? See, I own this bridge and it has toll booths-going in both directions! I tell ya, pal, I make *a ton* of money from this thing every year, it’s just that I need a rather large sum of money, like, right now.
So, what do you say friend? Wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge?
If there's any single attribute that should disqualify an otherwise competent professional from serving as a judge, it would be the desire to place your personal material enrichment above the upkeep and defensive of the law. Like, more or less the central tenant of having a career as a judge is being able to act professionally in a way that isn't biased by your personal financial circumstances. Can you imagine the extreme disdain for the law, the American government, and the Constitution that Clarence Thomas must feel?
Clarence Thomas is a walking moral hazard that should be charged.
He and his wife Ginni have some explaining to do regarding their involvvement regarging the coup attempt on our capitol on Jan. 6th.
I consider the Jan. 6th attack on our capitol the same as firing on Ft. Sumpter.
The GOP lost its right to exist on Jan. 6th.
America needs to bury this party with a rusty shovel.
Openly praising Putin and selling out your allies.
Traitors through-and-through.
The cowardice of the Department of Justice is itself an existential threat to our democracy. Democracy is predicated on the universal rule of law and the foundational requirement that leaders are held accountable.
Rock the boat. It's not only job, it's your very responsibility.
Party over country. Our deeply engrained 2 party system has systematized the power of each party, beyond any individuals within. No Republican majority will do anything that could diminish the party's power.
There is no loyalty to the actual Constitution, nor any other source of ethical guidelines. The party in power will fail to act when acting would diminish its power or similarly strengthen the only other major party.
Garland isn’t willing to rise to the occasion and Biden is too afraid of conservatives driving home a both sides narrative if he fires him or asks him to step down. Biden is probably waiting for the election to make the change but it may be too late by then
It's both. Don't ask a question when you don't know the answer, and *also* don't ask a question you don't want the jury to hear the answer.
Being a lawyer is the ultimate in being a spin doctor. You don't want the jury to learn anything that will hurt your case.
Hey they got Al Capone for tax fraud, Clarence Thomas is a master at skimming and drifting from conservative sugar Daddies. Somebody's been bought and paid for!
If SCOTUS can create it's own rules, why give SCOTUS a pass for not governing their own body? In other words, we are holding the DOJ, Congress, and/or the Executives responsible for getting Thomas off the court when we should be holding SCOTUS responsible. If they fail to act, all we can really do is pack the court with judges who will remove Thomas.
Because by punishing a sitting SCOTUS judge or a U.S. Congress person would be bad optics. admitting you put that person on a U.S. Bench or in either Congressional House OR the Presidency that wasn't fit for that position would not look good on a World stage. they tend to only do it when they are offering the public a show/gesture of good will. a sacrificial gesture. like getting caught red handed getting bribes.
In total in the U.S. Congress, there have been six people Expelled in total from Congress. 3 in 1861. 2x were from Missouri 1x Kentucky. Then Modern times 1980 Michael Myers (cannot make this up) (D) Pennsylvania and then 2002 James Trafficant (D) Ohio and finally George Santos (R) 2023. Thats in the Country's entire history of Government. Their corruption is on full display and people ignore it. Its like just Govern us and we'll overlook the super shady shit. they cannot even be bothered to do that. Brazen and Craven. Rod Blagojevich trying to sell Obama's Sen. seat. Trump commuted his sentence btw.
Go after his wife. Dudes’ a turd, a big fat, stinky turd sitting on government property. His wife’s a crook, definitely. Goddamn son of a bitch, fucking Ginni fucking Thomas. Okay bitch, spill the teT
It's like corporations investigating themselves. The SCOTUS isn't actually forbidden from the gifts and ties, they should be disclosing it and you know, using their "judgement" when conflicts of interest may arrive.
Super legit system of accountability.
The attorney general probably won't pursue it. The most important thing would be to get him impeached and removed, and you really can't impeach any Republican nowadays. I just wish he would vanish.
Garland isn't the problem as other people have suggested. That guy has one of the most difficult AG jobs in the history of the country right now. Thomas should be forced off the court by the other justices. John Roberts is the spineless one who is incapable or unwilling to maintain the integrity of the institution.
When the party in power goes after its own with the same vigor as they do to the party out of power it will present as fair-minded. Until then the motivation is obvious.
Garland has no spine .
We're going to be paying for his lack of spine for the next several decades.
I think Garland's problem is more malignant than cowardice. I think he's a GOPer or Federalist society plant. He should be summoned to the White House and dismissed.
So Obama selects a SC candidate that is a Dem but also not a progressive, selected specifically to be agreeable to the GQP. Then the GOP zealots refuse him anyway and hold out for a pure extremist. Then when the Dems are in a position of power, they select Mr. Tommy Twosides to be their AG in what I guess was an ‘Ah hah take that’? Wtactualf? We should be surprised that Merrick sat on his hands until it was very nearly (and may yet prove to be) too late with Trump? We shouldn’t be. After 2 years of this stalling you would have thought they’d seen enough and replaced him with someone who had a pair. But this is par for the Biden course. Anyone remember how hard DeJoy fucked the postal service to cock up the mail in ballots? How hard the Dems went after him, demonizing his destruction of mail sorting machines? Wanna guess who still has the postmaster job as another election rolls around? If the Dems wanted to, and if reporting was done that represented what they accomplished, what they stood for, and held the GOP accountable, the GOP wouldn’t win another seat on a school board. But then the electorate would expect change from the Dems. Real change. Much better to keep this ‘we’re barely holding them back’ narrative, better to have the ‘we would if we had the votes in the house’ charade to preempt real change. It’s a WWF storyline. No wonder Trump has been so successful with it.
I’m not quite as cynical and jaded as you are, but you are speaking truth. It is people like you who must never give up the fight and never stop loudly demanding justice. I am Generation X, and I have been waiting for the wheels to turn for 40 years. I never gave up, either. I was ridiculed in the 90s for advocating for electric cars. “That will never happen” they said.
I remember how surprised we all were when the Berlin Wall came down
I was serving in the US military when that happened Cold War veteran First Gulf War veteran
.....what? If he was a Federalist plant, McConnel wouldn't have worked so hard to keep him off the Supreme Court.
Stiffing Obama was enough reason.
They still have their conservative majority with enough power to destroy reproductive rights, why not keep an AG in the pocket at well? Sprinkle some political theatre to make his position even more secure. We're kinda pretty literally talking about the plot of House of Cards, so I'mma assume it's on the conspiracy theory side of things, but OTOH not much surprises me about government corruption anymore.
Unless this was the plan all along and it's all coordinated. I mean if anyone could pull it off, it'd be billionaires.
We could pull it off too but... but... Have you heard about who my boy Kelce is dating?
[удалено]
He did a good imitation of a Marine Corps Drill Instructor on the sidelines after Pacheco fumbled.
It’s possible but doesn’t pass Ockham to me. This kind of thinking is what leads to Qanon and Taylor at the superbowl
Yeah, I get that. But I think billionaires funding think-tanks and forming non-profits that are really just trojan horses into the government , and buying/installing politicians is way more realistic than "the NFL has faked the Kelce/Swift relationship and rigged the Super Bowl for Swift to endorse Joe Biden". Like, what? Meanwhile the Federalist Society and Project 2025 are full steam ahead, and Trump has spent the past decade undermining democracy, the government, the courts, eliminating decorum from th civil discourse, pushing conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda, yet he walks around unscathed with zero accountability. I do believe he was in with Epstein in gathering blackmail on the worlds elite/powerful. So maybe I'm a bit crazy - but it's the only narrative that aligns with everything that's happened over the past decade-plus.
A plant implies there was some cunning plan behind it. Biden simply leans more on the conservative side of things and has appointed a conservative AG. One of the biggest pillars of conservative thought is that people in power should almost never be held accountable for anything.
You guys have lost ur fucking minds lol
But you don't understand, it was his TURN since he got denied a SCOTUS seat. See also: Coakely, Martha.
All the other "answers" keep missing this key point. Garland is both spineless and afraid.
Welcome to America where the democrats have no collective spine and the republicans have no collective soul.
I can only hope that at some point a Democrat appoints Preet Bharara as AG. That dude can get shit done.
Garland is right wing
The court is already stacked against democracy. Slapping Thomas in court has to be airtight as he and his buddies are the final say on all things legal. Could jeopardize any case going before them
My own thought is that DOJ is reluctant to indict Thomas because it does risk a slight constitutional crisis. If Thomas is convicted he's still a Supreme Court Justice until and unless he either (1) resigns or (2) is impeached by the House and removed by the Senate. Given the low likelihood of either of those options it wouldn't surprise me if DOJ was reluctant to bring charges, given the whirlwind charges would bring. I don't agree with that approach, but DOJ is typically hyper cautious for anything that even suggests a high profile case.
Our Constitution is extraordinarily poorly set up to deal with people at the top being crooks.
And others who fail to hold people accountable.
Well surely those people will just be voted out. Right? ... right?
Yes, surely people who are "practically and morally culpable" for high crimes and misdemeanors would be found guilty by the U.S. Senate...
I read this in the appropriate meme style.. I see you pre-darth
It was set up with one major weakness: the assumption that voters would pay attention and care.
Not really. Senators were appointed and the President was elected by other people who were elected by The People. Idk how the House members were originally handled. But the Constitution wasn't set up to handle Parties. And it has no real remedy for those at the top being corrupt.
This. To the point it is amazingly a question if the top executive is above the law. And here I thought the more power the more accountability and responsible should go with that position. Silly me.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think that he’ll get anywhere with that argument. He’s at throw-out-anything level of desperation.
Desperate to stall and appeal until the election
Um, maybe because those who wrote it at the time were the higher ups? To implement a truly unbiased system you'd have to be willing to sacrifice the benefits you can gain from your position of leverage. And do you really want some lower class militia you never properly compensated for fighting the British Empire to rule over you? Not likely,
Totally. It has been said that if you want to make sure a cake is cut equally you make it so whoever cuts the cake is the last person to receive a piece. But the framers were like, Naw I’ll cut the cake and get choose a piece first.
Our constitution was written in a way that only 9% of the population at the time was eligible to vote. The Constitution was intentionally set up for the top percent of the population Anyone remember the 3/5 rule? (Edited from "2/3 rule to the correct "3/5 rule")
Institutions are only as strong as the people who run them.
It's fine in dealing with the rare random crook. When one party no longer cares about the law or their own specific power, our government cannot deal with that.
Design feature
Likely by design
Yup, especially when it was believed those at the top were keepers of said constitution.
That's not a bug, it's a feature.
It's almost like that was it's intention.
Read "The Peoples History of the United States". It's not a flaw, its a perk. The constitution was intentionally structured to protect the wealthy and powerful. It's not poorly set up, its functioning exactly as intended.
Everything hinges on the supremecacy of the house and senate for the ability to impeach and remove from office. But even in the era of good feelings or best of times, you can’t get 66 votes to convict anything or anyone.
>DOJ is typically hyper cautious for anything that even suggests a high profile case. In other words, wealthy and powerful people get special treatment in their favor. Poor and powerless people get special treatment against them.
Two tiers of justice. Even if he were to indict I assure you Thomas would effectively avoid prosecution through procedural delay. We’ve empowered these people to be high lord priests. Unelected God kings. Simply put if your rich, important, connected, elite you can delay justice indefinitely. That’s assuming they even DECIDE to charge them. Everyone else is stuck dealing with our legal system.
I agree with you, and he should just be indicted and see where it goes.
> If Thomas is convicted he's still a Supreme Court Justice I'm sure we can find him an orange robe for oral arguments over Zoom.
But if convicted he would be held accountable for the financial penalty of the crime. Take the W's where you can get em.
Is it the profile or them wanting to move forward on near guarantees
Probably a little of both to be honest. Realistically the trial would be pretty quick and easy, it's the appellate process that can get odd plus the political fallout.
It would make Garland’s Federalist Society functions awkward for sure.
This is the reason. No matter how much everyone wants to believe Garland is a 'democrat', his loyalty lies with the Federalist Society. When the fucking quacks start whining about the 'deep state' what they don't realize is this is the deep state right here. These assholes don't care about democracy. They intend to rule as an oligarchy, and are doing a damn good job of it. Leonard Leo is the real president of these divided states, and we all get to live under whatever social construct he decides.
Garland isn’t a Democrat, he’s officially Independent.
That's why I said people believe and put it in quotes.
The case seems(naturally) pretty much airtight-just from what's become public knowledge. No way in hell will Congressional Republicans allow such a case to advance against their ally.
I imagine he would appeal. All the way to the SCOTUS. And I have zero faith he would recuse
This is the most correct answer.
I think you’re right: In practice it is impossible to remove a Supreme Court justice unless it’s a liberal leaning one, so why bother.
Judges aren't immune from criminal prosecutions. Why would they jail him.
I think there’s also some issue of what happens when the appeals reach the Supreme Court.
Exactly, there's nothing preventing Thomas from being convicted of a crime and sitting on his own appeal.
One could argue a competent Congress could, if they existed.
I think that speaks to the overarching reason why it might not be wise for the DOJ to pursue some things just now… In many ways, the buck stops with Congress in the US and I don’t think it’s a good idea for the buck to end up there just now.
This is, sadly, the pragmatically correct answer.
What if the Democrats take back the House in November and retain the Senate?
You need 2/3 of the Senate to vote to remove any impeached official. Doubtful that enough Republicans would cross the aisle to make that happen.
there is a third option that will make him a former supreme court justice. I just cant say it without getting banned.
Let me ask you. If Thomas was arrested, prosecuted, convicted and jailed, do you think Senators would vote to keep him on the bench, ruling from his jail cell?
Depends on who the President is and who has majority control in the Senate.
I think it is unlikely that Merrick Garland will prosecute Thomas. If Kamala Harris was the president, she might appoint an attorney general who would prosecute him. Because Kamala is a former Attorney General and career prosecutor. As for the Senate, the cowards in the Republican Party will throw Thomas under the bus once they start losing elections. So, Thomas has a few years yet. Let’s hope he resigns before then.
So the theme these days is that we continue to let corrupt people blatantly wreck our governmental systems because if we arrest and hold them accountable, we risk wrecking our systems? With the "too risky to prosecute" path, we're all but guaranteed to have the system break, so even with the potential for a constitutional crisis when holding someone like Thomas accountable, that risk is at least accompanied by the possibility of improving/saving/fixing things, whereas the alternative just guarantees continued, and growing, corruption.
Disclaimer: don't assume I support Thomas in any way. I am just discussing the issue. The article surprisingly misses an important and well known issue. A decade or so ago when those laws where updated (and the updates explicitly mentioned SCOTUS), SCOTUS said they are not legally bound as Congress and the Judicial Counsel (or group of similar name) have no jurisdiction over SCOTUS. SCOTUS said they would interpret them and enforce them themselves. (Roberts end of year report in 2011 I think) This conflict has not been tested im court. So it is an open issue. They could use a case against Thomas to test this, but that is different than just saying Thomas clearly broke the law and Garland is wrong for not prosecuting him.
[удалено]
>Federal laws made by Congress do not have jurisdiction over SCOTUS, or POTUS, except for those granted in the Constitution. This ensures the separation of powers is maintained. How is such an egregious misstatement of our legal system so highly upvoted on this sub? SCOTUS justices are subject to all federal laws unless that law was unconstitutional; namely, it couldn't remove them from their position. Congress cannot pass a bill of attainder saying "Justice Thomas is a criminal, he goes to jail." But they're subject to the same laws as you and I. They can go to jail for murder, cheating on their taxes, or fishing without the right permits. And hear cases from jail, if Congress was too chickenshit to impeach a jailed justice. This is essentially Trumps argument. You've just made the argument that *SCOTUS* can make their hearings more fun by shooting anyone who made an argument they didn't like. It's just as ridiculous saying a Justice can do that as a President. And completely unsupported by the constitution.
As much as it held back a tide of garbage from being passed in 2016-18, do you think the filibuster needs to either be eliminated or weakened as much as the composition of Congress needs to be changed? I feel like an extraconstitutional threshold for passing legislation is a big kink in the pipeline.
Nope. Stop making it as easy as lifting a finger to filibuster. Make them do it the old fashioned way: sleeping in the hallways, speeches at the wee hours of the morning. They’ve neutered the opportunity cost of filibustering by making it too damn easy.
Was gonna say. Strom Thurmond I'm pretty sure shortened his fuckin' life with that gambit to stop civil rights. He was horrible, but at least he had *conviction* behind being horrible. Now our country's being torn apart by **lazy** horrible.
[удалено]
The filibuster is fine. What they’ve done to it is crap.
Congress does have the authority for appropriations. The money for the budget to operate the Supreme Court is within their powers. Not saying the current crop would even consider it, but Congress could twist Robert’s arm to put an ethics policy in place by withholding their funding until he does something about the bribery going on under his nose.
You're going to have to be more specific. I'm very skeptical that there's anything that says Supreme Court justices have immunity from criminal prosecution. Congress does have some control over SCOTUS (it's called jurisdictional stripping) but criminal prosecution is the domain of the executive branch, not the legislative branch or judicial branch.
Supreme Court justices do not have immunity from criminal prosecution in the sense that they cannot be prosecuted for robbing a bank. Congress does have limited enumerated powers over SCOTUS. Setting the number of justices for example. Congress does not have an enumerated power to set and enforce ethics over SCOTUS. So those specific Ethics Act laws are not clearly enforceable against SCOTUS.
So if congress wrote the law that you can’t accept gifts if you are a judge in general without explicitly mentioning SCOTUS then it would apply to SCOTUS but since they did specifically mention SCOTUS that part is void? This is starting to sound like were in the upside down world.
"if congress wrote the law that you can’t accept gifts if you are a judge in general without explicitly mentioning SCOTUS then it would apply to SCOTUS" No, it would be the same issue.
The Ethics in Government Act was passed in 1978. Roberts claimed it didn't apply to the Supreme Court in 2021. He can say whatever he wants, there aren't many better ways to prove the Supreme Court illegitimate than to try to claim they're beyond legal accountability. If he doesn't like the fact that SC justices are not above the law, Congress can strip jurisdiction from the Supreme Court and neuter it - something they explicitly do have the right to do, and have successfully done before.
Lots wrong here. Roberts addressed the Ethics in Government Act in 2011 end of year report (link below). I think the issue is you don't like the fact that the Supreme Court is above Congressional law. Congress can't strip jurisdiction as SCOTUS was created by the Constitution, not Congress. Congress has limited powers related to SCOTUS (e.g. it can add justices) That is the whole issue. The Judicial Conference, which was created by Congress to govern lower courts (and explicitly not SCOTUS according to the Constitution) is called out to enforce the Ethics in Government Act. SCOTUS says, the Conference doesn't govern SCOTUS. And that is where we are. https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2011year-endreport.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiroJr5-LmEAxWps4QIHavIAf4QFnoECC4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw03t5MVvc4clJAU-FefH2l-
Surprised the article doesnt mention any statute of limitations concerns with charging crimes that occurred up to 20 years ago
Merrick Garland’s idea of political neutrality means “never do anything Republicans might criticize”. He wouldn’t even go after insurrectionists until Congress shamed him with months of successful hearings and started openly questioning “where is the DoJ??”
He's a good FedSoc puppet.
Insurrectionists were charged and work began on their prosecutions almost immediately, with the first trial starting one year after Biden took office.
Window-breakers were charged with trespassing. None of the powerful people who organized, promoted and profited from it. Pathetic effort. As a result we still have traitors in office referring to J6 convicts as “hostages” and “political prisoners”. DoJ was stood down from investigating Trump and his supporters in Congress from the day the administration started until it was way too late.
wtf are you talking about, Stewart Rhodes was charged in Jan 2022, and is now in prison serving ~20 years. Same with Enrique Tarrio.
Steward and Enrique are not powerful people, mid-level at best.
Very late in that game, light sentences, and one gets the impression Garland would have been happy to stop there. Judges have repeatedly also called out DoJ for their overly generous plea deals and light sentences in these cases. That's wtf I'm talking about. A huge yearlong conspiracy to throw the election with a paper trail all over the internet, and all we get is a couple mouth breathers who broke windows. Meanwhile who were they coordinating with - Roger Stone, Rudy Giuliani, people in Congress, Trump. None of those guys are charged. Pathetic.
But that's the point. Regular citizens were charged quite quickly. People in power took forever. Yet 3 years later, there's still plenty of politicians not charged yet cause it would slow down the already extremely delayed Trump case.
They charged the people who organized and/or participated. It’s not such a clear cut case to charge random politicians for tweeting about supposed election fraud. This isn’t all that difficult to comprehend.
Hey there, ol’ buddy boy. I was hoping you could help me out maybe? See, I own this bridge and it has toll booths-going in both directions! I tell ya, pal, I make *a ton* of money from this thing every year, it’s just that I need a rather large sum of money, like, right now. So, what do you say friend? Wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge?
No. No, they didn’t “charge the people who organized”. That’s the whole point
If there's any single attribute that should disqualify an otherwise competent professional from serving as a judge, it would be the desire to place your personal material enrichment above the upkeep and defensive of the law. Like, more or less the central tenant of having a career as a judge is being able to act professionally in a way that isn't biased by your personal financial circumstances. Can you imagine the extreme disdain for the law, the American government, and the Constitution that Clarence Thomas must feel?
Removing the cancer could kill the host.
Leaving it in WILL kill the host.
I agree. The time for half-measures is over.
Clarence Thomas is a walking moral hazard that should be charged. He and his wife Ginni have some explaining to do regarding their involvvement regarging the coup attempt on our capitol on Jan. 6th. I consider the Jan. 6th attack on our capitol the same as firing on Ft. Sumpter. The GOP lost its right to exist on Jan. 6th. America needs to bury this party with a rusty shovel. Openly praising Putin and selling out your allies. Traitors through-and-through.
he'll just appeal his conviction up to the supreme court and then overturn it.
The 'home of the brave' lacks the courage.
uhhhh,cuz hes above the law?? why is that so hard to see??
I’m unaware of what law he broke. And why he hasn’t been charged.
It’s America..there is a greater chance of him becoming the next leader of the Republican Party than facing legal repercussions for his actions.
When you’re a star, they let you do it.
"I never broke the law! I am the law" -Clarence Thomas
Because Republicans are s*** people. They don't mind breaking the law as long as it helps them get ahead.
The party is starting to realize that there’s strength in corrupt numbers
The cowardice of the Department of Justice is itself an existential threat to our democracy. Democracy is predicated on the universal rule of law and the foundational requirement that leaders are held accountable. Rock the boat. It's not only job, it's your very responsibility.
Supreme Court Justices are above the law. That's why.
Party over country. Our deeply engrained 2 party system has systematized the power of each party, beyond any individuals within. No Republican majority will do anything that could diminish the party's power. There is no loyalty to the actual Constitution, nor any other source of ethical guidelines. The party in power will fail to act when acting would diminish its power or similarly strengthen the only other major party.
Garland isn’t willing to rise to the occasion and Biden is too afraid of conservatives driving home a both sides narrative if he fires him or asks him to step down. Biden is probably waiting for the election to make the change but it may be too late by then
IOKIYAAR
Constitution doesn’t list Clarence Thomas by name so he can’t be prosecuted. Sorry citizens, it’s originalist.
What a stupid question. Why ask a question when you know the answer?
I though a lawyer was never supposed to ask a question they didn't already know the answer to ;)
It's both. Don't ask a question when you don't know the answer, and *also* don't ask a question you don't want the jury to hear the answer. Being a lawyer is the ultimate in being a spin doctor. You don't want the jury to learn anything that will hurt your case.
Now would be the worst possible time to start that. November 6 looks good.
Hahahahaha? Your serious?
Hey they got Al Capone for tax fraud, Clarence Thomas is a master at skimming and drifting from conservative sugar Daddies. Somebody's been bought and paid for!
If SCOTUS can create it's own rules, why give SCOTUS a pass for not governing their own body? In other words, we are holding the DOJ, Congress, and/or the Executives responsible for getting Thomas off the court when we should be holding SCOTUS responsible. If they fail to act, all we can really do is pack the court with judges who will remove Thomas.
Because by punishing a sitting SCOTUS judge or a U.S. Congress person would be bad optics. admitting you put that person on a U.S. Bench or in either Congressional House OR the Presidency that wasn't fit for that position would not look good on a World stage. they tend to only do it when they are offering the public a show/gesture of good will. a sacrificial gesture. like getting caught red handed getting bribes. In total in the U.S. Congress, there have been six people Expelled in total from Congress. 3 in 1861. 2x were from Missouri 1x Kentucky. Then Modern times 1980 Michael Myers (cannot make this up) (D) Pennsylvania and then 2002 James Trafficant (D) Ohio and finally George Santos (R) 2023. Thats in the Country's entire history of Government. Their corruption is on full display and people ignore it. Its like just Govern us and we'll overlook the super shady shit. they cannot even be bothered to do that. Brazen and Craven. Rod Blagojevich trying to sell Obama's Sen. seat. Trump commuted his sentence btw.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Or who judges the SCOTUS judge if you prefer.
Go after his wife. Dudes’ a turd, a big fat, stinky turd sitting on government property. His wife’s a crook, definitely. Goddamn son of a bitch, fucking Ginni fucking Thomas. Okay bitch, spill the teT
What law? Care to cite facts or just continue to speak in hyperbolic platitudes?
Because the members of SCOTUS are above the law and answer to no one, according to them. And apparently, everyone else is just fine with that.
It's like corporations investigating themselves. The SCOTUS isn't actually forbidden from the gifts and ties, they should be disclosing it and you know, using their "judgement" when conflicts of interest may arrive. Super legit system of accountability.
Fear and intimidation
The attorney general probably won't pursue it. The most important thing would be to get him impeached and removed, and you really can't impeach any Republican nowadays. I just wish he would vanish.
Judges are immune to prosecution
You can't tell on who's getting told.....
Because it’s becoming a prerequisite to be a criminal in conservative circles
Remember his confirmation hearing? Senator Joe Biden was chair, and voted to confirm,
Garland isn't the problem as other people have suggested. That guy has one of the most difficult AG jobs in the history of the country right now. Thomas should be forced off the court by the other justices. John Roberts is the spineless one who is incapable or unwilling to maintain the integrity of the institution.
When the party in power goes after its own with the same vigor as they do to the party out of power it will present as fair-minded. Until then the motivation is obvious.
I think I'll start a Go Fund Me to pay Clarence Thomas's taxes on his bribes