494
submitted 4 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] RedstoneValley@sh.itjust.works 94 points 4 months ago

“Is a $100 Dunkin’ Donuts gift card for a trash collector wrongful?” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the court’s opinion. “What about a $200 Nike gift card for a county commissioner who voted to fund new school athletic facilities? Could students take their college professor out to Chipotle for an end-of-term celebration?”

In my country government employees (including teachers) can't legally accept gifts above €10 in value. All of these examples would be illegal here. Sounds petty, but anti-corruption laws are pretty strict for a reason.

[-] qarbone@lemmy.world 40 points 4 months ago

He gave hypotheticals with very clear and pretty easy answers. The fact that he posed those as stumbling blocks means he shouldn't be deliberating on anything more significant than what he should have for lunch.

[-] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago

Federal ethics guidelines are $20 of value and it can't be a cash equivalent (gift card).

These clowns are so out of touch.

[-] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Actually, they are in touch. In touch with fascism. Won't be long now. Soon enough we get to spend the next four years guessing. "Will there be a 2028 election?" Don't you worry, there will be an, "election." Just like Russia has an election. Sorry guys, it's all but over. I hoped you liked having rights. Thank God I don't have fucking children.

[-] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

Financial institutions have a TON of regulations against this sort of thing. You can't accept gifts, you can't serve on a board if there's a conflict of interest, you can't take politicians out for dinner, etc. This is seriously fucked up. Shit is going to get even more corrupt, but now they don't have to hide it.

[-] UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world 83 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The fact that the President, who maybe some time in distant memory, didn’t choose judges based along political lines, chooses the Supreme Court judges seems crazy to me.

Why aren’t the best judges and lawyers getting together and electing them? I’m a scientist by trade, so I’m more use to a peer reviewed system. Nonetheless, I find it maddening that our election cycle realistically choses the highest court in America rather than those most equipped to make that decision. Who gives a fuck what the president thinks should be the next Supreme Court justice? I’d rather hear from the experts of the field choose who it is.

[-] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 34 points 4 months ago

To actually explain why, I think it's because the theory is our president and politicians are supposed to be actually representing the people and have their saftey, best interest, and goals and/or morals in mind first and foremost.

Damn I can see how that sounded perfect forever ago. Wonder which of our proposed solutions to current problems would have similar unexpected consequences, and I wonder what those would look like.

Sorry if none of this made sense or was coherent to anyone. Don't try to reread it I'm just high

[-] BossDj@lemm.ee 6 points 4 months ago

Makes sense and sounds so nice

We locally choose our very best to go represent our interests. And it would be in our interest to have an experienced, educated, honest judge. So one would think that our politician is spending time researching, discussing, and vetting along with the other best minds from around the country.

But we never get to choose our best. Or at least our best is outnumbered and voiceless.

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 11 points 4 months ago

Seems reasonable, but Republicans would have spent decades capturing that system and we'd end up in a similarly bad position. The problem is conservatives have shit ideas and want them to be law. Unless we fix that, any system will be corrupted.

[-] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Exactly. Either way the Heritage Foundation will pack the courts.

[-] Allonzee@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

All that's left are tears at the reality, or laughter at the gallows absurdity of the reality.

[-] randompasta@lemmy.today 7 points 4 months ago

Correction, Trump's judges are a joke.

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

When has a right-wing joke ever been funny

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Fat Orange has them in his pocket. Gonna take way more than tweezers to extract them

He doesn't, though. They're appointed for life, so they have no reason to bow to him.

They're just awful people.

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Reason is about as far away from why they do what they do. He put them there so he owns them

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 4 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


On Thursday, in their ruling halting the Biden administration’s plan to limit ozone pollution from drifting into other states, Supreme Court justices repeatedly, accidentally referenced “nitrous oxide” — a.k.a.

The decisions, taken together, offer a perfect representation of the current Supreme Court: Our country is being led by an all-powerful, undemocratic institution that is, in many ways, a complete joke — in addition to being simply corrupt.

Americans, broadly-speaking, appear to recognize the court isn’t simply calling balls and strikes, as Chief Justice John Roberts once pledged to do.

“Is a $100 Dunkin’ Donuts gift card for a trash collector wrongful?” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the court’s opinion.

As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted in her dissent, the corruption statute “was not designed to apply to teachers accepting fruit baskets, soccer coaches getting gift cards, or newspaper delivery guys who get a tip at Christmas.”

Justices haven’t issued their ruling yet on former President Donald Trump’s claims to an expansive, perpetual immunity shield from prosecution.


The original article contains 810 words, the summary contains 166 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] johny@feddit.org 1 points 4 months ago

Unlike congress, the senate, hell at this point even the presidency.

this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
494 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19104 readers
3088 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS