this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
848 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19103 readers
3449 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
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 6 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is facing pressure to recuse himself from a case determining whether Donald Trump can claim presidential immunity from prosecution in a federal indictment against him.

Trump made the argument in relation to a federal case accusing him of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.

In December 2022, she was questioned by a committee investigating the January 6 riot after reports that she had texted White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, urging him to continue challenging the election results.

"This issue will shape our democracy & ethnically & morally, Clarence Thomas recusing himself is the responsible thing to do — for public trust in the Court's decision.

Democrat content creator Harry Sisson wrote: "Clarence Thomas must recuse himself from any and all cases involving Donald Trump and the 2020 election.

Meanwhile, Trump's campaign reacted to the Supreme Court decision by accusing Smith of trying to rush a "witch hunt" in a press statement.


The original article contains 693 words, the summary contains 176 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] iegod@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago

Pond scum. I take that back actually, even scum is useful.

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Let’s go fishing

[–] Pulptastic@midwest.social 5 points 11 months ago

He would if he wasn't corrupt. If.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

This would be a lot of effort for a 5-3 decision.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›