135
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
135 points (97.9% liked)
politics
18881 readers
4041 users here now
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.
- 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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Of course! She should never have been allowed to oversee this case. Not sure what Smith was thinking by not challenging her assignment.
Contrary to popular belief, it's very difficult to challenge the assignment of a judge.
The threshold for bias in a judge is also almost impossibly high to meet.
Here's a full video breaking it down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S8R2Nri5pU
I watched the vid and it sounds to me like the judiciary has handed itself a lot of power over time to the point where holding them accountable is neigh impossible.
Yeah, that about sums it up.
And how many poor people are there in their ranks? Ensuring a certain class of people are not held accountable is the point.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=
https://piped.video/watch?v=_S8R2Nri5pU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
That would have delayed as well. I presume he's banking on upcoming further indictments elsewhere.
She should have never been in that position in the first place and anyone appointed by trump should be reviewed/removed from their position.
But apparently a judge appointed by a literal traitor is a-okay.