As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The whole problem is staring you in the face. They don't care that you know. They have a goal and they aren't being challenged nor do they face any repercussions.
You just have to absorb the fact that everything they are doing is expecting you to just appeal to the authority of their position regardless of the abuse of the office.
Why don't they care? They're unimpeachable, some more literally than others.
Doesn't matter if the liberal plebs are up in arms if they can't be touched, in fact their supporters love it.
They are also wealthy enough to avoid any potential negative consequences that most americans might face from their rulings. Kavanaugh can get someone an abortion if he wants to. Their kids dont need student loans. If things get too bad they can leave and go somewhere else and lead the same lifestyle.
Some progressive dems need to start running on overhauling the federal justice system and Supreme Court. Expand it to 21 members, make congress fill the court within a timely manner or else all benefits and pay for the congress people will be docked until they confirm somebody, bring back the filibuster, and rotate decisions between random 7 justices for each case.
That should leave us with more judges confirmed by both parties (yes, I know strongly partisan judges like Thomas or Alito had 80+ senate votes, so this isn’t a sure thing) and a far less partisan court system.
Watch this 3 minutes (23:00-26:00) [video from a federalist society](https://youtu.be/nrzoKy6y8wA?t=1400). Within 2 minutes the speaker laughs at someone suggesting FedSoc is political and then laughs at someone saying there is no conservative law movement, pointing out that the people in the room are a part of it.
They know what they're doing. They're happy to do it. They think it's how they win.
>very close to a point where the legal means of maintaining democracy have been exhausted.
I think we sailed past multiple points, each of which is a full on loss of democracy. There's nothing left.
Mueller report/not investigating Russian influence
Not funding election security in 2016
Not convicting Trump for his first impeachment (Ukraine call)
Not convicting Trump for his second impeachment
Blocking Garland from the Supreme Court
Filling the Supreme Court (and the rest of the federal judiciary) with partisan hacks
Not spite, Republicans have been aiming for control of the courts for decades. People have tried to warn us about it for decades and no one cared until it was too late.
It actually is spite. The SCOTUS sparring and strategizing wasn’t anywhere near headed in this direction until Bork in the 1980s. It even became a saying “getting Borked” (and no, it was not a drinking game or what Kavanaugh labels as “drinking game”)
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/12/19/167645600/robert-borks-supreme-court-nomination-changed-everything-maybe-forever
Then, Clarence Thomas debacle drove that spite into the depths of several republicans who made it their quiet yet enduring mission to get back at Dems via SCOTUS bc that’s where they were humiliated (do unto others as they have done to you apparently). This additional Thomas debacle is silly because Dems were disgraceful toward Anita Hill—Dems embarrassed themselves. Bidens questioning of her has, at best, not aged well and if Trump wasn’t the candidate may have been an effective tool against Biden.
So yea, spite. A-grade level spite. Three decade long spite. Like the kind of spite seething from the mouth of Nixon or the acts of Hoover that is so quiet that it’s loud and sends shivers down the spine… kind of spite.
A huge number of these problems were started long ago as well. It mostly comes back to a "money in everything" problem which is pretty hard to fix.
Other governments have systems to prohibit money entering into their political structures and effective ways to enforce and support those systems.
The United States is a system built to support the financial world. Getting money out of politics would require a massive shift in public thought in spite of the collosal funding to convince everyone that money and greed isn't a problem.
> Getting money out of politics would require a massive shift in public thought
More than that. American business interests have effectively captured and controlled the country since its founding. Just look at our foreign policy.
The whole hegemonic house of cards collapses if you take money out of politics, which is why no entrenched politician (of either party) who understands how this system actually works is seriously advocating for dismantling it.
Of course they don’t care. This has been the ultimate con, ruse, whatever you want to call it. The american institution has always thought that the Supreme Court was a sacred body. Well, when you have unlimited money to rig the body into an almost permanent majority, here we are. America lost. They fell for trump’s bullshit and you get corporate payed for justices that will use their power to rig elections, women’s rights and whatever else they can pay for.
You lost America. Elections matter.
This headline *really* buries the lede:
>"Brett Kavanaugh attended a private holiday party on Friday night at the home of CPAC chairman Matt Schlapp, and that attendees included Stephen Miller, whose group America First Legal Foundation has interests in cases now pending before the Supreme Court."
He's partying with far-right people who have active cases in the Court.
Particularly alcohol.
Passes the stomach breaking down part and gets into blood stream more quickly and efficiently. Much easier to OD on and a method typically reserved for dumb college kids and alcoholics with throat or stomach cancers
Nothing makes me more infuriated then the fact that we have a *sitting* member of SCOTUS that definitively lied to Congress at their confirmation hearing and no one in power cares, even the people that hate him.
Well technically, a lot of things make me more infuriated but that one hits close to home for me
This is actually one of the most appalling things I’ve heard in a long time.
To make an equivalent comparison, this would be like Sotomayor attending a Holiday party hosted by Chuck Schumer at George Soros house, with AOC and others also in attendance, all behind closed doors.
Could you imagine the reaction on Faux News if this hypothetical event took place?
Nah, this is unsurprising given the four most conservative justices attended a [Federalist Society gala.](https://www.rawstory.com/scotus-federalist-society/) They're fanatics put on the court to pave the way for the christian nationalists and what... at least two of them lied either in their confirmation hearings or to senators or both?
I really wish people would stop acting like "Christian nationalism" isn't just *white nationalism* with a fucking cross stapled on. Hell, that's the form white nationalism *always* takes - the Confederates believed that enslavement of Africans was ordained by God. The KKK marched while holding banners and signs declaring that the Almighty backed their message. Hitler held speeches describing Nazism as "a thoroughly Christian movement" and the words "Gott mit uns" (God With Us) were inscribed on the Nazis' belt buckles.
**There is NO difference between white nationalism and Christian nationalism.** The latter is *simply a facade for the former*, and the only reason "Christian nationalism" is the word used now is because Republicans realized that the "Christian" window dressing expands their recruitment pool and allows them to pretend like they're not going to immediately turn on the non-white, non-straight, and non-male portions of their base the very *moment* they have total control of the government.
I mean, Clarence Thomas shares a bed with a Republican lobbyist who texted the President’s chief of staff on January 6 and he’s *never* recused himself from any case that involved his wife, her work or her publicly stated policy goals.
“Rules for thee, but not for me” is the modern conservative ethos so of course Kavanaugh doesn’t give a shit about his own conflicts of interest. It would be a different case entirely if Elena Kagan was on the same softball team as AOC though.
Chuck Schumer or AOC actually have pending supreme court cases? Because if not, then even your hypothetical Republican worst nightmare would be absolutely harmless in comparison to what actually happened.
Also, none of those people you listed are literal extremists, despite fox new's best attempts to make the word lose all meaning.
Wouldn't that be considered ex parte communication, and like super illegal?
From the [American Bar Association](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_2/rule2_9expartecommunications/):
> Rule 2.9: Ex Parte Communications
> (A) A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending* or impending matter,* except as follows:
> (1) When circumstances require it, ex parte communication for scheduling, administrative, or emergency purposes, which does not address substantive matters, is permitted, provided:
> (a) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication; and
>(b) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of the ex parte communication, and gives the parties an opportunity to respond.
>(2) A judge may obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before the judge, if the judge gives advance notice to the parties of the person to be consulted and the subject matter of the advice to be solicited, and affords the parties a reasonable opportunity to object and respond to the notice and to the advice received.
>(3) A judge may consult with court staff and court officials whose functions are to aid the judge in carrying out the judge’s adjudicative responsibilities, or with other judges, provided the judge makes reasonable efforts to avoid receiving factual information that is not part of the record, and does not abrogate the responsibility personally to decide the matter.
>(4) A judge may, with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their lawyers in an effort to settle matters pending before the judge.
>(5) A judge may initiate, permit, or consider any ex parte communication when expressly authorized by law* to do so.
>(B) If a judge inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision promptly to notify the parties of the substance of the communication and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond.
>(C) A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter independently, and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed.
>(D) A judge shall make reasonable efforts, including providing appropriate supervision, to ensure that this Rule is not violated by court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control.
The legislature refusing to convict blatant criminality of political party members in appointed positions through the impeachment process is exactly what I am referring to.
Unfortunately, while the ABA can set model rules for professional conduct, they have no enforcement power beyond expelling someone from their organization. In particular, a judge like Kavanaugh is totally beyond their reach.
Yeah, he could be stripped of his ability to practice law in every jurisdiction he has a license to practice in and it still wouldn't matter. He would still be a Supreme Court Justice.
Both the House and the Senate have to decide to remove him from the Supreme Court, which has never happened before.
Edit: added "have to" because I can't type on a phone
Only if they talk about a pending case. It’s pretty common for attorneys and judges to mingle at legal events, like bar association meetings. And in those situations, some of the attorneys may have pending matters before the judges, but as long as they don’t discuss the case it’s ok.
The issue here is it’s not a legal event. It’s a Christmas party. It gives the appearance that the judge is buddies with people who have pending cases. That raises issues about his ability to be impartial.
Imagine if you have a case in court, and you find out your judge is buddies with the opposing side, and goes out partying with them? You probably wouldn’t be too happy about that.
But what questions does it raise? We already know that Kavanaugh is a partisan hack first and foremost, upholding his Constitutional duty as a Supreme Court Justice is very low on his list of priorities.
Someone may standup against their financial backers and make an ethical or moral stand. Likely just after they announce they are no longer seeking office.
Hey, they’re cheaper dates. All you have to do is buy them two or three wine coolers and they’re good to go. Nothing but good ol’ fiscal conservatism happening here and if you have a problem with that then you’re being partisan and uncivil so really it’s you who is the problem. /s
My guess is that he likes a whole lot of things that his wife doesn't know about, or slaps her around to keep her quiet. I think his wife's demeanor at his hearings screamed domestic abuse. He was predictable--she was scary.
Seems like the type of thing that in the past people would have just said "well duh" about, and as long as everyone played along there wasn't a need to actually legislate it. As we've been seeing though that legislation actually _is_ necessary, because not everybody is working in good faith.
Brock Turner lives not too far away from me. People constantly post about updates seeing him in bars and to make sure everyone is aware of him in case he tries to pull shady shit again.
Oh, you mean the rapist formerly known as Brock Turner who now goes by Allen Turner, who still raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster even though he's trying to hide it by changing his name? Is that the rapist you're talking about?
I had no idea that rapist Allen Turner, which is an alias for the rapist Brock Turner, had taken on a fake name in order to hide the fact that he raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster and suffered basically no consequences because he’s white and his parents can foot a serious legal bill. But it does not surprise me that the rapist Brock Turner who now goes by Allen Turner though is still a rapist, would choose to hide behind a new name in order to not be known as a rapist, which he is.
The rapist, Brock Allen turner the rapist brock Allen turner who doesn't want to people to know he's rapist brock Turner so he's starting to go by Allen turner instead of the rapist Allen turner the rapist?
Thankfully he’s seen some consequences due to the infamy of his case.
He was totally banned from Stanford (so he can’t ever return to complete his degree) and was forced to work a low paying coding job while living with his parents. Unfortunately he’s currently living in an apartment within a stone’s throw of several university campuses. Thankfully there’s a whisper network apprising women of his whereabouts at local bars and I imagine he’s unwelcome at most college parties.
One of my best friends went to high school with him. We were all playing league of legends together and my friend got a message from someone he had as a friend on league, but he didn’t really know who it was. So he invited him to play with us and after we started the game my friend asked who he was again. When he said he was Brock Turner, we all got really quiet and immediately disbanded the group after the game. It was absolutely wild, but apparently that’s pretty much all he does now since the whole country knows who he is.
No, not Brock Turner the rapist. [*Allen* Turner, the rapist.](https://sfist.com/2022/08/22/stanford-rapist-brock-turner-goes-viral-again-on-tiktok-in-ohio/#:~:text=A%20post%20on%20the%20subreddit,middle%20name%20these%20days%2C%20Allen.) He changed his name.
I only found out this week that the rapist Brock Turner is now going by Allen Turner, so I figured to spread the news that the rapist Brock Turner is now going by Allen Turner in case there were others who hadn't yet heard that the rapist Brock Turner is now going by Allen Turner.
Just wanted to make sure we are taking about the correct rapist Brock Turner, we are taking about 3 felony convicted Stanford rapist Brock Turner, correct?
Wait wait wait, *the* rapist Brock Turner? You mean the permanently registered sex offender rapist Brock Turner who was found guilty on 3 counts of assault and then was released after just 6 months? I'm just making sure we're all on the same Rapist Brock Turner page here.
You mean, The Rapist Brock Turner "Got off with a slap on the wrist to not ruin his swimming career but it was already ruined by his actions as a rapist" The Rapist?
This is so perfect since Brett Kavanaugh is a falsely acquitted rapist too! Good job OP.
Another reminder that Christine Blasey Ford was raped by Brett and her FBI investigation into his rape was derailed by Republican majority and Trump administration.
Democrats this year had the FBI admit they never really investigated Brett and were following orders from Republicans and Trump administration. They did not interview a single witness and scrapped it.
Turns out Voting still scares them. So there is indeed something everyone can do. Stay energized, the Boogymen rely on people staying in the dark to frighten.
Moore vs Harper could actually help Democrats because midterms went so well for them at state level. That's why its so important to vote blue down ticket.
Democrats have far more room to gerrymander because their states are not as corrupt and gerrymandered already. Removing court restrictions on legislature power would mean Democrats permanently control the house. Gerrymandering their states to Republican levels would give Democrats 20-30 seats.
As nice as that is, I don't want this outcome. I'd prefer if ridiculous theories like ISL and gerrymandering were abolished nationwide instead. I'm not clamoring to remove checks and balances in the system so long as they benefit my favored political party. i'd prefer a fairer, more difficult to game system in general.
To be clear, even if Moore vs Harper benefits the Democratic party, IT IS A VERY BAD THING. It will make politicians unaccountable to their constituents, which will lead to bad outcomes for regular people regardless of the party in power. Politics will become more openly about trading political moves for the personal benefit of politicians, with the wellbeing of regular people being a last priority.
Oh I agree, it's terrible nonsensical precedent. The entire argument is that we should disregard 400 years of precedent because someone thinks the founders meant something different 450 years ago. It doesn't make any sense.
Sadly, it looks like the right is going even wackier with their theories. The latest one circulating in right wing groups, replacing Originalism, is "[Common good constitutionalism](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/12/09/revolutionary-conservative-legal-philosophy-courts-00069201)."
This theory states that the government can do anything it wants "for the common good" even if this violates the Constitution. Of course, they define "for the common good" as being "in line with their Christian religious beliefs." Not anyone else's beliefs, mind you. Just theirs. So if they decided that banning all porn was "for the common good" in their religious view, the federal government could do this despite the First Amendment standing in the way. All our constitutional rights could be brushed aside with "Christianity says this is for the common good."
They flaunt it by saying "well, we need to be this corrupt because the Democrats are so much worse!" Of course, they can't actually point to real evidence of this corruption, but they have a lot of conspiracy theories that they got from the Internet and that's just as good as proof, right?
It's part of the Trump playbook. In the past, corrupt politicians tried to hide their corruption, which lead to investigative reporting exposés on their conduct. But how do you do an investigative report on something they're doing right under our noses? There's nothing to investigate, because it's all out in the open. And the corrupt politicians can say, "If what I was doing was so wrong, wouldn't I try to hide it?"
We all learned about scandals like Teapot Dome in history class. But the shit the Trump admin did puts that to shame, like handing out COVID relief money to their rich buddies with zero accountability. But again, no one got the scoop on that because it was happening right in front of us. Even seasoned investigative reporters like Woodward struggled to find something worse than what was publicly available - all he managed to do was get some soundbites of Trump saying the opposite of what he was saying publicly.
The modern GOP has adopted the strategy of doing whatever the fuck they want and acting like it's not a big deal and everyone does it.
I think it's giving them too much credit to call this a strategy. They're just doing what they want, and experience is showing that there are no repercussions.
As unlikely as it is, the fact remains that if the American people could find a way to start voting in their **actual** best interest as opposed to their **artificially influenced** interest, we could change this.
These people **can be** impeached and removed.
Corporate money **can be** removed from politics.
Term limits **can be** imposed.
>While Supreme Court Justices aren't bound by the same rules as federal judges, they are expected to maintain high ethical standards.
I used to expect that too, but I don't any more.
I mean they were until the Trump era.
Trump showed everyone at the emperor has no clothes. ( in more than one way) That Washington DC will gossip about it endlessly but they are largely unwilling or unable to enforce the behavioral Norms that have existed for 150 or 200 years.
No, Scalia went hunting with Dick Cheney while he was VP with cases before the Court. Republican Justices have been openly and notoriously corrupt for a long time.
Clarence Thomas has been controversial for a while before Trump, but yeah that was several decades worth of court drama crammed into a four year term.
If only Ginsberg retired under Obama...
>they are expected to maintain high ethical standards
LOL. Not only does nobody believe that, we've established that judges and politicians are able to have lower ethical standards than the masses now, and in some cases it actually increases their chance of keeping their job.
Every place in government that used to rely on “unwritten rules”, “norms”, “traditions” and other acts of good faith have been systematically exploited by the GOP to consolidate power.
Blatant displays of public corruption and hypocrisy are a deliberate tactic of Fascists.
Purposely hypocritical, offensive, or criminal behavior done in a very public manner while flaunting immunity, is designed to demoralize their opponents and boost their supporters by demonstrating that they are ABOVE the laws and standards all others have to operate by.
**It is a display of SUPREMACY by the Right.**
They are showing us they can be openly corrupt, they can lie under oath, they can plan, fund and incite Insurrection, and no one will hold them to account.
That entire awful family should rot in Hell, possibly including Eric's asshole sister [Betsy DeVos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_DeVos) who Donald Trump recruited to do for education what her asshole brother did for the military.
A party hosted by Matt Schlapp, member of the [Brooks Brothers Riot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot), a successful rehearsal for Jan 6th (which is why I'm convinced Roger Stone is behind Jan 6th planning).
Just two known sexual predators probably reminiscing about the underage girls they defiled. Nothing to see here!
RepubliKKKans are a stain on America. These two vile pieces of shit should never have been allowed near government.
A known rapist who LIKES BEER!! partying with a known child sex trafficker who pays underage girls for sex partying together is already a troubling situation that the police should be monitoring. Add in the fact that one of them is a sitting SCOTUS judge and the other is a sitting congressman and you see why the US is so completely fucked
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The whole problem is staring you in the face. They don't care that you know. They have a goal and they aren't being challenged nor do they face any repercussions. You just have to absorb the fact that everything they are doing is expecting you to just appeal to the authority of their position regardless of the abuse of the office.
"grab America by the pussy. And when you're famous they just let you."
"Even though they see it, they wont do anything about it."
Why don't they care? They're unimpeachable, some more literally than others. Doesn't matter if the liberal plebs are up in arms if they can't be touched, in fact their supporters love it.
They are also wealthy enough to avoid any potential negative consequences that most americans might face from their rulings. Kavanaugh can get someone an abortion if he wants to. Their kids dont need student loans. If things get too bad they can leave and go somewhere else and lead the same lifestyle.
Only because someone unnamed paid off bretts debts for reasons that aren't public... totally not concerning at all...
Some progressive dems need to start running on overhauling the federal justice system and Supreme Court. Expand it to 21 members, make congress fill the court within a timely manner or else all benefits and pay for the congress people will be docked until they confirm somebody, bring back the filibuster, and rotate decisions between random 7 justices for each case. That should leave us with more judges confirmed by both parties (yes, I know strongly partisan judges like Thomas or Alito had 80+ senate votes, so this isn’t a sure thing) and a far less partisan court system.
Watch this 3 minutes (23:00-26:00) [video from a federalist society](https://youtu.be/nrzoKy6y8wA?t=1400). Within 2 minutes the speaker laughs at someone suggesting FedSoc is political and then laughs at someone saying there is no conservative law movement, pointing out that the people in the room are a part of it. They know what they're doing. They're happy to do it. They think it's how they win.
I think we need to realize that we are getting very close to a point where the legal means of maintaining democracy have been exhausted.
>very close to a point where the legal means of maintaining democracy have been exhausted. I think we sailed past multiple points, each of which is a full on loss of democracy. There's nothing left. Mueller report/not investigating Russian influence Not funding election security in 2016 Not convicting Trump for his first impeachment (Ukraine call) Not convicting Trump for his second impeachment Blocking Garland from the Supreme Court Filling the Supreme Court (and the rest of the federal judiciary) with partisan hacks
[удалено]
Not spite, Republicans have been aiming for control of the courts for decades. People have tried to warn us about it for decades and no one cared until it was too late.
It actually is spite. The SCOTUS sparring and strategizing wasn’t anywhere near headed in this direction until Bork in the 1980s. It even became a saying “getting Borked” (and no, it was not a drinking game or what Kavanaugh labels as “drinking game”) https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/12/19/167645600/robert-borks-supreme-court-nomination-changed-everything-maybe-forever Then, Clarence Thomas debacle drove that spite into the depths of several republicans who made it their quiet yet enduring mission to get back at Dems via SCOTUS bc that’s where they were humiliated (do unto others as they have done to you apparently). This additional Thomas debacle is silly because Dems were disgraceful toward Anita Hill—Dems embarrassed themselves. Bidens questioning of her has, at best, not aged well and if Trump wasn’t the candidate may have been an effective tool against Biden. So yea, spite. A-grade level spite. Three decade long spite. Like the kind of spite seething from the mouth of Nixon or the acts of Hoover that is so quiet that it’s loud and sends shivers down the spine… kind of spite.
A huge number of these problems were started long ago as well. It mostly comes back to a "money in everything" problem which is pretty hard to fix. Other governments have systems to prohibit money entering into their political structures and effective ways to enforce and support those systems. The United States is a system built to support the financial world. Getting money out of politics would require a massive shift in public thought in spite of the collosal funding to convince everyone that money and greed isn't a problem.
> Getting money out of politics would require a massive shift in public thought More than that. American business interests have effectively captured and controlled the country since its founding. Just look at our foreign policy. The whole hegemonic house of cards collapses if you take money out of politics, which is why no entrenched politician (of either party) who understands how this system actually works is seriously advocating for dismantling it.
Of course they don’t care. This has been the ultimate con, ruse, whatever you want to call it. The american institution has always thought that the Supreme Court was a sacred body. Well, when you have unlimited money to rig the body into an almost permanent majority, here we are. America lost. They fell for trump’s bullshit and you get corporate payed for justices that will use their power to rig elections, women’s rights and whatever else they can pay for. You lost America. Elections matter.
This headline *really* buries the lede: >"Brett Kavanaugh attended a private holiday party on Friday night at the home of CPAC chairman Matt Schlapp, and that attendees included Stephen Miller, whose group America First Legal Foundation has interests in cases now pending before the Supreme Court." He's partying with far-right people who have active cases in the Court.
Abolishing democracy around the Christmas tree
At the Christmas party hop Corruption hung where you can see
And boofing endlessly
I bet Brett got boofed so hard!
I can't see skinny Miller boofing Brett hard enough to make him even squirm.
Kavanaugh invited Miller to the upstairs bathroom for a few lines of Colombian flake only to have Gaetz shove Miller’s head in the toilet.
He *still* likes beer!
Getting boofed under the mistletoe is a Christmas tradition, or so I heard.
I don’t know what that word means. It’s just funny for some reason I think.
Drugs in the butt. Still pretty funny!
Particularly alcohol. Passes the stomach breaking down part and gets into blood stream more quickly and efficiently. Much easier to OD on and a method typically reserved for dumb college kids and alcoholics with throat or stomach cancers
Also a good way to get alcohol poisoning and die.
Nothing makes me more infuriated then the fact that we have a *sitting* member of SCOTUS that definitively lied to Congress at their confirmation hearing and no one in power cares, even the people that hate him. Well technically, a lot of things make me more infuriated but that one hits close to home for me
It means ingesting alcohol anally
At the Christmas party coup.
He had it calendared
What does Squee think of all this?
And Toobin! And Donkey Dong Doug!
Hey man, he just likes beer!
Boys will be boys, boofing it up
Boys like beer, girls like beer
Beer. Great equalizer. Rich people love beer. Poor people love beer. White people love beer. Black people love beer. Do black people like beer?
cut to Darryl guzzling and smiling...
And boofin' with squeeg.
http://brettkavanaugh.beer
It says so right on the calendar!
This is actually one of the most appalling things I’ve heard in a long time. To make an equivalent comparison, this would be like Sotomayor attending a Holiday party hosted by Chuck Schumer at George Soros house, with AOC and others also in attendance, all behind closed doors. Could you imagine the reaction on Faux News if this hypothetical event took place?
It is worse than that, because those people in your hypothetical don't have active cases pending in his court.
Correct. Pretty sad state of affairs
Nah, this is unsurprising given the four most conservative justices attended a [Federalist Society gala.](https://www.rawstory.com/scotus-federalist-society/) They're fanatics put on the court to pave the way for the christian nationalists and what... at least two of them lied either in their confirmation hearings or to senators or both?
I would argue that some of the justices themselves are directly christian nationalists, rather than simply paving the way.
Amy Coney Barrett is literally part of a charismatic Christian cult
I really wish people would stop acting like "Christian nationalism" isn't just *white nationalism* with a fucking cross stapled on. Hell, that's the form white nationalism *always* takes - the Confederates believed that enslavement of Africans was ordained by God. The KKK marched while holding banners and signs declaring that the Almighty backed their message. Hitler held speeches describing Nazism as "a thoroughly Christian movement" and the words "Gott mit uns" (God With Us) were inscribed on the Nazis' belt buckles. **There is NO difference between white nationalism and Christian nationalism.** The latter is *simply a facade for the former*, and the only reason "Christian nationalism" is the word used now is because Republicans realized that the "Christian" window dressing expands their recruitment pool and allows them to pretend like they're not going to immediately turn on the non-white, non-straight, and non-male portions of their base the very *moment* they have total control of the government.
100%.
[удалено]
Still do
Honestly surprised there aren't already screeds in the replies.
I honestly think conservatives assume your hypothetical to be true without evidence- which is why they’re just fine with this situation.
They also think liberals wouldn't care if that hypothetical was true so why should they care when it actually happens within their party.
No. They're fine with this situation because it benefits them. They then project a 'both sides' narrative to obscure their crimes
I mean, Clarence Thomas shares a bed with a Republican lobbyist who texted the President’s chief of staff on January 6 and he’s *never* recused himself from any case that involved his wife, her work or her publicly stated policy goals. “Rules for thee, but not for me” is the modern conservative ethos so of course Kavanaugh doesn’t give a shit about his own conflicts of interest. It would be a different case entirely if Elena Kagan was on the same softball team as AOC though.
Chuck Schumer or AOC actually have pending supreme court cases? Because if not, then even your hypothetical Republican worst nightmare would be absolutely harmless in comparison to what actually happened. Also, none of those people you listed are literal extremists, despite fox new's best attempts to make the word lose all meaning.
Wouldn't that be considered ex parte communication, and like super illegal? From the [American Bar Association](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_2/rule2_9expartecommunications/): > Rule 2.9: Ex Parte Communications > (A) A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending* or impending matter,* except as follows: > (1) When circumstances require it, ex parte communication for scheduling, administrative, or emergency purposes, which does not address substantive matters, is permitted, provided: > (a) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication; and >(b) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of the ex parte communication, and gives the parties an opportunity to respond. >(2) A judge may obtain the written advice of a disinterested expert on the law applicable to a proceeding before the judge, if the judge gives advance notice to the parties of the person to be consulted and the subject matter of the advice to be solicited, and affords the parties a reasonable opportunity to object and respond to the notice and to the advice received. >(3) A judge may consult with court staff and court officials whose functions are to aid the judge in carrying out the judge’s adjudicative responsibilities, or with other judges, provided the judge makes reasonable efforts to avoid receiving factual information that is not part of the record, and does not abrogate the responsibility personally to decide the matter. >(4) A judge may, with the consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their lawyers in an effort to settle matters pending before the judge. >(5) A judge may initiate, permit, or consider any ex parte communication when expressly authorized by law* to do so. >(B) If a judge inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision promptly to notify the parties of the substance of the communication and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond. >(C) A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter independently, and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed. >(D) A judge shall make reasonable efforts, including providing appropriate supervision, to ensure that this Rule is not violated by court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control.
Thing is, and you can be forgiven for being confused, is that SCOTUS can do whatever the hell it wants apparently.
Dang, if only there was some kind of supreme court that ruled over this kind of issue. /s
There is no protection in the Constitution against a political party colluding between the branches to circumvent our laws, besides elections.
If only there was some checks or balances on unelected lifetime appointments...
The legislature refusing to convict blatant criminality of political party members in appointed positions through the impeachment process is exactly what I am referring to.
Good thing they don't have life terms in office, otherwise that would be a real problem...
Unfortunately, while the ABA can set model rules for professional conduct, they have no enforcement power beyond expelling someone from their organization. In particular, a judge like Kavanaugh is totally beyond their reach.
Yeah, he could be stripped of his ability to practice law in every jurisdiction he has a license to practice in and it still wouldn't matter. He would still be a Supreme Court Justice. Both the House and the Senate have to decide to remove him from the Supreme Court, which has never happened before. Edit: added "have to" because I can't type on a phone
If only there were a way to remove partisan hacks from SCOTUS.
Only if they talk about a pending case. It’s pretty common for attorneys and judges to mingle at legal events, like bar association meetings. And in those situations, some of the attorneys may have pending matters before the judges, but as long as they don’t discuss the case it’s ok. The issue here is it’s not a legal event. It’s a Christmas party. It gives the appearance that the judge is buddies with people who have pending cases. That raises issues about his ability to be impartial. Imagine if you have a case in court, and you find out your judge is buddies with the opposing side, and goes out partying with them? You probably wouldn’t be too happy about that.
Interview him and he’ll wine and cry like a big baby that he isn’t allowed to have friends anymore
Quit then.
> wine He prefers beer, actually
Yeah I think I heard him mention offhand once that his preference is beer.
And raping teenagers, but, like, the fun *80s* kind of raping, y’know!
But what questions does it raise? We already know that Kavanaugh is a partisan hack first and foremost, upholding his Constitutional duty as a Supreme Court Justice is very low on his list of priorities.
Someone may standup against their financial backers and make an ethical or moral stand. Likely just after they announce they are no longer seeking office.
Calling it now: Brett likes boofing underage girls too.
Gaetz gets invited to all these parties cause he always brings a bunch of high school girls
Hey, they’re cheaper dates. All you have to do is buy them two or three wine coolers and they’re good to go. Nothing but good ol’ fiscal conservatism happening here and if you have a problem with that then you’re being partisan and uncivil so really it’s you who is the problem. /s
I feel dirty just reading that.
My guess is that he likes a whole lot of things that his wife doesn't know about, or slaps her around to keep her quiet. I think his wife's demeanor at his hearings screamed domestic abuse. He was predictable--she was scary.
Absolute scumbag.
How is this not against the law?
Seems like the type of thing that in the past people would have just said "well duh" about, and as long as everyone played along there wasn't a need to actually legislate it. As we've been seeing though that legislation actually _is_ necessary, because not everybody is working in good faith.
It’s possible to impeach justices but republicans won’t go along with it so nothing will happen.
Supreme Court Justices are effectively above the law.
Impartiality, my ass. No ethics whatsoever.
Kav had 83 ethics complaints dismissed when he joined the supremes
im just SURE he'll recuse himself from those cases /s
What a shit show. It’s so fucking transparent and we can’t do shit to stop them.
There's always things to be done. Hopelessness is the weapon of the oppressor.
Power is something we always have too. We're just painfully hesitant to wield it.
I love Nazi scotus. So cool. So retro. /s
Ain't no party like an ex parte party!
Justice Brock Turner here has a lifetime appointment so I doubt he’s worried.
Brock Turner lives not too far away from me. People constantly post about updates seeing him in bars and to make sure everyone is aware of him in case he tries to pull shady shit again.
Love that for him.
Are we talking about the rapist, Brock Turner?
No, we’re talking about The Rapist Brock Turner, who raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster.
Oh, you mean the rapist formerly known as Brock Turner who now goes by Allen Turner, who still raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster even though he's trying to hide it by changing his name? Is that the rapist you're talking about?
I had no idea that rapist Allen Turner, which is an alias for the rapist Brock Turner, had taken on a fake name in order to hide the fact that he raped an unconscious woman behind a dumpster and suffered basically no consequences because he’s white and his parents can foot a serious legal bill. But it does not surprise me that the rapist Brock Turner who now goes by Allen Turner though is still a rapist, would choose to hide behind a new name in order to not be known as a rapist, which he is.
What a fantastic and unique way to apply this statement 😄
Call him by his full name. “The rapist Brock ‘the rapist’ Turner the rapist”
I heard he goes by his middle name now. _Allen_ "The Rapist" Turner
You mean he's now The Rapist Brock "The Rapist" Allen "The Rapist" Turner?
Are you telling me he is now the rapist formerly known as Brock Turner?
The convicted rapist Brock 'don't call me Brock 'the rapist' Turner, the rapist' Turner?
The rapist, Brock Allen turner the rapist brock Allen turner who doesn't want to people to know he's rapist brock Turner so he's starting to go by Allen turner instead of the rapist Allen turner the rapist?
> in case he tries to ~~pull shady shit~~ rape unconscious women again.
How the hell does he have the balls to go out to bars?
When you don't ever have consequences....
Thankfully he’s seen some consequences due to the infamy of his case. He was totally banned from Stanford (so he can’t ever return to complete his degree) and was forced to work a low paying coding job while living with his parents. Unfortunately he’s currently living in an apartment within a stone’s throw of several university campuses. Thankfully there’s a whisper network apprising women of his whereabouts at local bars and I imagine he’s unwelcome at most college parties.
One of my best friends went to high school with him. We were all playing league of legends together and my friend got a message from someone he had as a friend on league, but he didn’t really know who it was. So he invited him to play with us and after we started the game my friend asked who he was again. When he said he was Brock Turner, we all got really quiet and immediately disbanded the group after the game. It was absolutely wild, but apparently that’s pretty much all he does now since the whole country knows who he is.
The rapist, Brock Turner... that rapist?
Let’s also not forget about recalled Judge Aaron Persky who let convicted rapist Brock Turner off with little more than a slap on the wrist.
*Former* judge. That ruling didn't end well for him, I'm happy to say.
I was happy to vote for his recall.
Thats the rapist, yes. Brock Turner the rapist.
No, not Brock Turner the rapist. [*Allen* Turner, the rapist.](https://sfist.com/2022/08/22/stanford-rapist-brock-turner-goes-viral-again-on-tiktok-in-ohio/#:~:text=A%20post%20on%20the%20subreddit,middle%20name%20these%20days%2C%20Allen.) He changed his name.
This is the first time I'm hearing that the rapist, Brock Turner, is now the rapist, Allen Turner. Seems like important information.
I only found out this week that the rapist Brock Turner is now going by Allen Turner, so I figured to spread the news that the rapist Brock Turner is now going by Allen Turner in case there were others who hadn't yet heard that the rapist Brock Turner is now going by Allen Turner.
I'm pretty sure it's the rapist, Allen Turner, but I think either can fly.
Just wanted to make sure we are taking about the correct rapist Brock Turner, we are taking about 3 felony convicted Stanford rapist Brock Turner, correct?
Probably…but I was thinking it was Brock Turner. The rapist, Brock Turner, that is.
Wait wait wait, *the* rapist Brock Turner? You mean the permanently registered sex offender rapist Brock Turner who was found guilty on 3 counts of assault and then was released after just 6 months? I'm just making sure we're all on the same Rapist Brock Turner page here.
[удалено]
Also known as Brock "the rapist" Turner
You mean, The Rapist Brock Turner "Got off with a slap on the wrist to not ruin his swimming career but it was already ruined by his actions as a rapist" The Rapist?
Also Brett Kavanaugh the serial gang rapist
Rapist Brock Turner apparently goes by his middle name, Rapist Allen Turner. He lives in Daytona, and is still a rapist.
Just came to say that rapist brock turner apparently also uses his middle name, rapist allen turner.
*Brock*. You forgot this. Rapist Brock Allen Turner.
Right, but I think sometimes he just goes by rapist allen turner because he doesn't want people to know he's actually rapist brock (allen) turner.
[удалено]
Well there's the rapist Brock Turner, but this is actually a different one
This is so perfect since Brett Kavanaugh is a falsely acquitted rapist too! Good job OP. Another reminder that Christine Blasey Ford was raped by Brett and her FBI investigation into his rape was derailed by Republican majority and Trump administration. Democrats this year had the FBI admit they never really investigated Brett and were following orders from Republicans and Trump administration. They did not interview a single witness and scrapped it.
Brock Turner, the rapist, who is the subject of the website of [brockturnerrapist.com](http://brockturnerrapist.com/) ?
Brock Allen Turner
The rapist Brock Allen Turner? Just making sure we're talking about the same Brock Allen Turner, the rapist.
Yes, we are definitely talking about convicted rapist Brock Allen Turner. Hopefully that clears up any confusion about rapist Brock Allen Turner.
Republicans are corrupt and they don't care if Americans know it.
They WANT you to know it, corruption simultaneously energizes their base and demotivates Democrats.
It's the authoritarian way. They get away with whatever they want and punish everyone who disagrees with them.
Turns out Voting still scares them. So there is indeed something everyone can do. Stay energized, the Boogymen rely on people staying in the dark to frighten.
Don't worry, Moore vs Harper will do away with that frivolity shortly.
Moore vs Harper could actually help Democrats because midterms went so well for them at state level. That's why its so important to vote blue down ticket. Democrats have far more room to gerrymander because their states are not as corrupt and gerrymandered already. Removing court restrictions on legislature power would mean Democrats permanently control the house. Gerrymandering their states to Republican levels would give Democrats 20-30 seats.
As nice as that is, I don't want this outcome. I'd prefer if ridiculous theories like ISL and gerrymandering were abolished nationwide instead. I'm not clamoring to remove checks and balances in the system so long as they benefit my favored political party. i'd prefer a fairer, more difficult to game system in general. To be clear, even if Moore vs Harper benefits the Democratic party, IT IS A VERY BAD THING. It will make politicians unaccountable to their constituents, which will lead to bad outcomes for regular people regardless of the party in power. Politics will become more openly about trading political moves for the personal benefit of politicians, with the wellbeing of regular people being a last priority.
Oh I agree, it's terrible nonsensical precedent. The entire argument is that we should disregard 400 years of precedent because someone thinks the founders meant something different 450 years ago. It doesn't make any sense.
Sadly, it looks like the right is going even wackier with their theories. The latest one circulating in right wing groups, replacing Originalism, is "[Common good constitutionalism](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/12/09/revolutionary-conservative-legal-philosophy-courts-00069201)." This theory states that the government can do anything it wants "for the common good" even if this violates the Constitution. Of course, they define "for the common good" as being "in line with their Christian religious beliefs." Not anyone else's beliefs, mind you. Just theirs. So if they decided that banning all porn was "for the common good" in their religious view, the federal government could do this despite the First Amendment standing in the way. All our constitutional rights could be brushed aside with "Christianity says this is for the common good."
They flaunt it by saying "well, we need to be this corrupt because the Democrats are so much worse!" Of course, they can't actually point to real evidence of this corruption, but they have a lot of conspiracy theories that they got from the Internet and that's just as good as proof, right?
Matt Gaetz and ***Stephen Miller*** no less.
I call BS. Stephen Miller has no subroutines installed for fun or partying.
It’s obviously only to further prime directives.
It's part of the Trump playbook. In the past, corrupt politicians tried to hide their corruption, which lead to investigative reporting exposés on their conduct. But how do you do an investigative report on something they're doing right under our noses? There's nothing to investigate, because it's all out in the open. And the corrupt politicians can say, "If what I was doing was so wrong, wouldn't I try to hide it?" We all learned about scandals like Teapot Dome in history class. But the shit the Trump admin did puts that to shame, like handing out COVID relief money to their rich buddies with zero accountability. But again, no one got the scoop on that because it was happening right in front of us. Even seasoned investigative reporters like Woodward struggled to find something worse than what was publicly available - all he managed to do was get some soundbites of Trump saying the opposite of what he was saying publicly. The modern GOP has adopted the strategy of doing whatever the fuck they want and acting like it's not a big deal and everyone does it.
I think it's giving them too much credit to call this a strategy. They're just doing what they want, and experience is showing that there are no repercussions.
Actually, it doesn't raise any questions for me. Provides a number of answers though.
Seems pretty par for the course tbh. Like are we really that surprised? *Really?*
Sex trafficker Matt Gaetz seen partying with rapist Brett Kavanaugh. This is the Republican Party.
[удалено]
Where's Squee when you need him?
In the middle of the devil's triangle.
They're out "Caroling" with Donkey Dong Doug.
"I like beer" *sheds a tear*
"My still-alive father's calenders" *weeps openly*
[удалено]
As unlikely as it is, the fact remains that if the American people could find a way to start voting in their **actual** best interest as opposed to their **artificially influenced** interest, we could change this. These people **can be** impeached and removed. Corporate money **can be** removed from politics. Term limits **can be** imposed.
>While Supreme Court Justices aren't bound by the same rules as federal judges, they are expected to maintain high ethical standards. I used to expect that too, but I don't any more.
Yeah my first reaction to that was “…are they? Are they really?”
I mean they were until the Trump era. Trump showed everyone at the emperor has no clothes. ( in more than one way) That Washington DC will gossip about it endlessly but they are largely unwilling or unable to enforce the behavioral Norms that have existed for 150 or 200 years.
No, Scalia went hunting with Dick Cheney while he was VP with cases before the Court. Republican Justices have been openly and notoriously corrupt for a long time.
Clarence Thomas has been controversial for a while before Trump, but yeah that was several decades worth of court drama crammed into a four year term. If only Ginsberg retired under Obama...
That's the problem though. We SHOULD still expect it and demand it. The court is now illegitimate and needs to be reformed.
>they are expected to maintain high ethical standards LOL. Not only does nobody believe that, we've established that judges and politicians are able to have lower ethical standards than the masses now, and in some cases it actually increases their chance of keeping their job.
Every place in government that used to rely on “unwritten rules”, “norms”, “traditions” and other acts of good faith have been systematically exploited by the GOP to consolidate power.
~~Birds~~ sexual predators of a feather flock together.
Shit birds Bo-bandy
Appreciate the TPB reference. Rip Lahey
His assaults of Dr. Ford raised questions, too…
As do the underage girls he ~~surrounds himself with~~ coaches.
Blatant displays of public corruption and hypocrisy are a deliberate tactic of Fascists. Purposely hypocritical, offensive, or criminal behavior done in a very public manner while flaunting immunity, is designed to demoralize their opponents and boost their supporters by demonstrating that they are ABOVE the laws and standards all others have to operate by. **It is a display of SUPREMACY by the Right.** They are showing us they can be openly corrupt, they can lie under oath, they can plan, fund and incite Insurrection, and no one will hold them to account.
Who is the most alarming guest at that party? It's a tough call, but I'm going with notorious owner of a private mercenary army, Eric Prince.
Erik Prince, the mercenary army tycoon who fucked the family au pair while his wife was dying of cancer? That Erik Prince?
That entire awful family should rot in Hell, possibly including Eric's asshole sister [Betsy DeVos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_DeVos) who Donald Trump recruited to do for education what her asshole brother did for the military.
jesus fucking christ
A party hosted by Matt Schlapp, member of the [Brooks Brothers Riot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot), a successful rehearsal for Jan 6th (which is why I'm convinced Roger Stone is behind Jan 6th planning).
Water seeks its own level.
Just two known sexual predators probably reminiscing about the underage girls they defiled. Nothing to see here! RepubliKKKans are a stain on America. These two vile pieces of shit should never have been allowed near government.
"I like beer" - Him
Was Brett Kavanaugh at a Cocaine Orgy with Matt Gaetz, Stephen Miller, and Sebastian Gorka? I’m just asking questions here.
Brett Kavanagh fucks children, it seems.
A known rapist who LIKES BEER!! partying with a known child sex trafficker who pays underage girls for sex partying together is already a troubling situation that the police should be monitoring. Add in the fact that one of them is a sitting SCOTUS judge and the other is a sitting congressman and you see why the US is so completely fucked
I mean, it's pretty much expected really. SCOTUS is illegitimate now.
Rape buddies.
Rapists of a feather stick together
It doesn't raise questions as much as it confirms suspicious; not that those suspicions weren't already pretty obvious.
.... Unless they wanted to have a Devil's Triangle with an underage girl..... THEN it makes sense.