politics

18894 readers

3468 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.
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.
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

• 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

[email protected]

229

Justice Alito tells Congress he will not recuse from Jan. 6-related cases (wapo.st)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

He has something of a history of flying flags in support of the insurrection.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's not entirely fair, there's a lot more the executive branch could be doing to try to fix this too

Of course, Justices Alito and Thomas could choose to recuse themselves — wouldn’t that be nice? But begging them to do the right thing misses a far more effective course of action.

The U.S. Department of Justice — including the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, an appointed U.S. special counsel and the solicitor general, all of whom were involved in different ways in the criminal prosecutions underlying these cases and are opposing Mr. Trump’s constitutional and statutory claims — can petition the other seven justices to require Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves not as a matter of grace but as a matter of law.

The Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland can invoke two powerful textual authorities for this motion: the Constitution of the United States, specifically the due process clause, and the federal statute mandating judicial disqualification for questionable impartiality, 28 U.S.C. Section 455. The Constitution has come into play in several recent Supreme Court decisions striking down rulings by stubborn judges in lower courts whose political impartiality has been reasonably questioned but who threw caution to the wind to hear a case anyway. This statute requires potentially biased judges throughout the federal system to recuse themselves at the start of the process to avoid judicial unfairness and embarrassing controversies and reversals.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

boom, so both branches are complicit. got it.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yep, but I don't know if they're complicit because they genuinely like the way things are heading or complicit because they worry if they push back at all our society could totally break down into factions and they're not sure which side the cops and soldiers will choose, and those are two very different reasons for going along with things

Also, regardless of all of this - just by virtue of the fact that the Democratic party at the very least has to keep up the appearance of opposing the Republicans, we're all a lot better off with them winning elections, so I do recommend voting for them whenever you get the chance, just realize that's only step 1

e; words is hard sometimes

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago

agreed. the people yelling 'both sides' are ignoring the fact that only one side has been actively interfering with peoples ability to vote for decades now.. you may not like the democrats, but at least they arent attempting to remove your ability to vote