this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
488 points (98.2% liked)

politics

18754 readers
2047 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
 

The former president has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling in Colorado that he is ineligible to appear on the state primary ballot because of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

A group of House Democrats on Thursday called on conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from a case involving former President Donald Trump's eligibility to appear on Colorado's Republican primary ballot.

Trump on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to overturn a Colorado court ruling last month that disqualified him from appearing on the ballot over his conduct leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The former president’s appeal came after the state’s Republican Party filed its own appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision. The state court put its ruling on hold to allow for appeals, meaning Trump could remain on the ballot pending U.S. Supreme Court action.

A group of House Democrats, led by Rep. Hank Johnson, of Georgia, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee’s courts subcommittee, demanded that Thomas recuse himself from the case in a letter dated Thursday.

(page 2) 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 2 points 8 months ago

The only threat he might consider is one of losing his access to YouPorn.

[–] books@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Can I hear an argument from the other side because I clearly don't understand how this argument isnt sound and isn't being screamed by every talking head on TV, news, op ed, etc.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Pretty solid indicator he’s going to keep trump on the ballot.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

So 5-3 to keep Trump on instead of 6-3. It's a bold strategy, Cotton.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

If he doesn’t recuse himself he needs to be impeached for it as well. He’s blatantly and openly in cahoots

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Shouldn't they be asking the three judges that Trump himself appointed due to the obvious conflicts of interest? I mean, the chances of that happening are also less than zero, but at least there's more solid legal basis for the request in the first place.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 8 months ago

His wife going to the Jan 6 rally to support Trump and spreading his election misinfo is an even more obvious conflict of interest.

Saying the Trump appointees should refuse themselves because of that is like saying any case any part of the Biden admin is a part of should have Jackson recuse herself.

His appointees haven't even strongly leaned his way in previous decisions. But then a lot of their really unpopular decisions are probably right from a legal standpoint if not from a policy one and policy is supposed to be the role of Congress. For example the EPA decisions that amount to "when Congress delegates some of their authority to an agency, they only delegate the authority they specify in the legislation and not an inch more."

[–] root_beer@midwest.social 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

How about this: no matter what the decision is, Colorado keeps trump off the ballot anyway, with the rationale being that Thomas is a corrupt bastard in the tank for trump. It’s not like anything matters anymore.

[note: I don’t actually advocate this, for the most obvious reasons]

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

I feel it too

[–] Skkorm@lemmy.world -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn't it be better for Trump to lose the next election while on every state ballot?

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

No. He already did that. I’m afraid of trump yes, but I’m more afraid of people who see his lack of consequences and get ideas. An attempted coup needs consequences. It’s a crime with no possible motivation beyond greed, ego, and lust for power. And it’s a crime that others will attempt if he doesn’t face consequences, and specifically legal ones. Political consequences are fickle and explaining them away is easy.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›