Sieg67 Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 Trump-appointed judge in Alaska resigns after investigation finds he had ‘inappropriately sexualized relationship’ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/trump-appointed-judge-in-alaska-resigns-after-investigation-finds-he-had-inappropriately-sexualized-relationship/ar-BB1pGfPb?ocid=BingNewsSerp "According to the complaint, Kindred treated his law clerks “in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner.” The report cites witness accounts and hundreds of pages of text messages detailing inappropriate and vulgar comments Kindred made to his law clerks. Specifically, the report alleges that Kindred “discussed his past dating life, his romantic preferences, his sex life, the law clerks’ boyfriends and dating lives, his divorce, his interest in and communications with potential romantic or sexual partners, and his disparaging opinions of his colleagues.” Kindred also made disparaging comments about public and political figures, the report says, citing several specific examples. “In the few instances where clerks came to Judge Kindred to discuss his inappropriate behavior, they were belittled or ostracized, and, in one instance, a clerk left the clerkship,” the report adds." 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1pooh4u Posted July 10 Author Share Posted July 10 2 Senate Democrats asked AG Garland to investigate Justice Thomas and his not reporting lavish gifts he received. This man made major decisions on cases while receiving gifts from people involved in said cases. That the only questionable thing he did was not report the gifts is frightening. Had he reported it and still refused to recuse himself from certain cases where conflict of interest was obvious, that’s legal in this country. We have legal bribery here he had nothing to lose by reporting the gifts that he did not tells me he knew he was basically taking bribes https://www.courthousenews.com/senate-democrats-demand-special-counsel-to-investigate-clarence-thomas/ 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sieg67 Posted July 10 Share Posted July 10 And AOC introduced articles of impeachment for Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. I'm not getting my hopes up but at least they're trying. https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/07/10/congress/blumenauer-biden-drop-out-reelection-house-democrats-00167452 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasqueradeOverture Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Biden going scorched earth for his last months on earth/in office 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpgamer Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Exactly the sort of thing he should've been doing from the start, with the expectation of being a one term president cleaning up after the last shitstain. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1pooh4u Posted July 29 Author Share Posted July 29 1 hour ago, MasqueradeOverture said: Biden going scorched earth for his last months on earth/in office None of this will actually happen 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jman Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 1 hour ago, 1pooh4u said: None of this will actually happen No but you can campaign on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1pooh4u Posted July 29 Author Share Posted July 29 3 minutes ago, Jman said: No but you can campaign on it. Absolutely, but most people realize it’s not going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discolé monade Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1pooh4u Posted July 30 Author Share Posted July 30 I think 18 years is too long and I didn’t really understand the every 2 years appointments when the appointment is 18 years unless he’s talking about replacing all the justices immediately 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1pooh4u Posted July 30 Author Share Posted July 30 Appointments should be 10 years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptorpat Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 5 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said: I think 18 years is too long and I didn’t really understand the every 2 years appointments when the appointment is 18 years unless he’s talking about replacing all the justices immediately the terms would be staggered, so one seat would become vacant every two years like clockwork. haven't seen any proposal text itself, just the Biden WaPo op-ed, so not sure how the transition would work. would be funny it they just phased out the next longest-serving justice every two years until the cycle completes, in which case the first three out the door would be Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1pooh4u Posted July 30 Author Share Posted July 30 2 minutes ago, Raptorpat said: the terms would be staggered, so one seat would become vacant every two years like clockwork. haven't seen any proposal text itself, just the Biden WaPo op-ed, so not sure how the transition would work. would be funny it they just phased out the next longest-serving justice every two years until the cycle completes, in which case the first three out the door would be Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. I would love for that to happen but since that requires a constitutional amendment I just don’t see it happening. Don’t like 2/3 of the states have to agree or something?, idrk how that works so I’m not even gonna pretend like I do 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptorpat Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 A. 2/3 of both houses of Congress propose an amendment, and then 3/4 of state legislatures ratify the amendment B. 2/3 of state legislatures vote to convene a constitutional convention 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1pooh4u Posted July 30 Author Share Posted July 30 2 hours ago, Raptorpat said: A. 2/3 of both houses of Congress propose an amendment, and then 3/4 of state legislatures ratify the amendment B. 2/3 of state legislatures vote to convene a constitutional convention A. No way B. Also, no way not in this ‘Murica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptorpat Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 10 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said: B. Also, no way now HERE's the nightmare fuel https://www.commoncause.org/our-work/constitution-courts-and-democracy-issues/article-v-convention/ 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1pooh4u Posted July 30 Author Share Posted July 30 3 minutes ago, Raptorpat said: now HERE's the nightmare fuel https://www.commoncause.org/our-work/constitution-courts-and-democracy-issues/article-v-convention/ WTH did I just read? ☹️ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptorpat Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 There are several conservative efforts to trigger a constitutional convention that are surprisingly far along, the plan being to take advantage of the fact that post-2010 Republicans have controlled a disproportionate amount of state legislatures. Here's an article from 2022: https://www.businessinsider.com/constitutional-convention-conservatives-republicans-constitution-supreme-court-2022-7 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1pooh4u Posted July 30 Author Share Posted July 30 I vaguely remember a ballot question about a constitutional convention. I voted no cuz idfkwtf that was and my gut was like “don’t do it” so I didn’t but I’m probably misremembering and voted no on something different. Seemed like it happened though 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptorpat Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 Slightly different. NY requires the state constitutional convention ("concon") ballot question every 20 years. It started out with general public support, our state constitution is horribly long with a lot of old/outdated/irrelevant content. But there are a lot of important protections in there too so all the institutional stakeholders from across the spectrum universally opposed it and collectively ran scorched earth campaigns against it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discolé monade Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 i had no idea. thank you, raptapat. even signed up for some spam emails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katt_goddess Posted July 30 Share Posted July 30 16 hours ago, 1pooh4u said: WTH did I just read? ☹️ Republicans attempting to shred the Constitution constitutionally. It's the problem with any attempt to convene - it's highly likely to be immediately hijacked and used to put the worst of things into motion. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsar4 Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 Both parties agree? 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1pooh4u Posted August 11 Author Share Posted August 11 29 minutes ago, tsar4 said: Both parties agree? From my quick read it does seem promising that voters from both parties agree with this reform but republican politicians don’t seem to care what their own voters and constituents want 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.