F the supreme Court
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
311 points (99.1% liked)
politics
19080 readers
5001 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.
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Coke can Clarence should have never been installed on the court.
Of course he did. We need to remove the lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court as there are literally no ramifications for this shit. Fuck these asshats
Guillotine.
Secret? Shit he will come out and say he proudly attended. What exactly are we doing about this? Not a peep from the Biden administration? Fuck this asshat.
Lock him up for the rest of his life.
ProPublica has been the best thing in the journalism space in decades.
Literally no one in the world is surprised by this in the slightest.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas attended at least two donor events for the Koch network, according to a ProPublica report published Friday.
Thomas in 2018 went to a private dinner for donors at the group’s annual summit in California and was brought in to speak with the hopes that the access would encourage donations, according to the report.
Charles and David Koch over the years built an influence network that poured millions into conservative and libertarian causes.
Thomas did not disclose the trip to the summit on his annual financial disclosure, though ProPublica did not identify who paid for the private jet flight.
The Supreme Court has a narrow definition of banned fundraising that only applies to events that raise more money than expenses incurred, or where guests are actually asked to contribute funds.
But Republicans have opposed the push, portraying it as an attempt to tear down the court’s conservative majority, giving the bill slim odds of passage.
The original article contains 423 words, the summary contains 159 words. Saved 62%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!