Gotta hand it to Republicans, they understood decades ago that SCOTUS is the weakest link in our democracy and they put everything they had into subverting it. Mitch McConnell stealing a seat in broad daylight was the best political maneuver in my lifetime.
I’m still mad about the strategic discussions about whether Democrats should filibuster Neil Gorsuch. Because if they didn’t, then Republicans would play fair from then on out.
“Finally, forcing the Republicans to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations frees Donald Trump’s hand if—as is likely—there is another nomination opportunity during his presidency. Once the 60-vote rule is broken, Trump will not have to be judicious about his next nominee.”
Another from the WaPo editorial board:
“The resulting standoff could end in three ways. First, a cloture vote could attract sufficient Democratic votes to reach the 60-vote threshold to stop a filibuster, which is unlikely. Second, Mr. McConnell could move to eliminate the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees, which would be deeply unwise and injure both parties in the long term. Third, the parties could strike a deal that would preserve the filibuster for the minority party in the case of future nominees while providing for an up-or-down vote on Mr. Gorsuch’s confirmation. That, not deepening the politicization of the judiciary, is the best path forward.”
I can’t tell what level you’re on here but just in case you’re being serious it’s important to know that Rs were going to nuke the filibuster to push Alito through back in the day. But then a handful of Ds capitulated for a handshake deal that they would let a bunch of deplorable Bush appointees through if the Rs agreed to do the same in the future. Spoilers: they did not hold up their end of the bargain which led to the Ds finally scrapping it for all appointments except SCOTUS. Of course the understanding was that whoever got to appoint the next justice was gonna nuke it for that as well, but it made for a good piece of theater.
1 Like
This quote aged well!
https://twitter.com/DanAmira/status/1810745426909483020?t=r4s4sXPxskrzyG5Xtad0Ng&s=19
Good:
3 Likes
Completely absurd that she’s the only one doing this.
1 Like
Senate Dems have more letters, and are asking Merrick Garland to appoint a special prosecutor (lol he won’t):
It’s hard to keep all of Thomas’s trips and gifts straight so I’m not sure if any of this is new or if it’s based on previous reporting.
What is a Special Council going to do? Just impeach the fucker.
Well, do both. Impeachment is theater because he’ll never be removed by a two-thirds vote in the Senate, but it’s still good to use it as one prong of attack. A special counsel could (in theory) have legal consequences.
Like, if Thomas had a $267k RV loan forgiven and didn’t declare the forgiveness as income (and ask yourself if, given everything we know about Clarence Thomas, you think he did), he’s guilty of pretty serious tax fraud!
Hahahahahahaha lololololol we’re still doing special prosecutors lolololol
1 Like
I’m not under the illusion that Thomas is going to be voted out, but at least force senators to defend his grift on the record. Maybe normalize the idea that justices can be removed.
At least AOC acts like she gives a damn, he instincts are so much better than these nerds who want another special prosecutor circus.
4 Likes
No need for a special counsel, Biden can just directly order Garland to prosecute this motherfucker as an Official Act™
2 Likes
Sorry - the supreme court, including Thomas, would just rule it’s not an official act in record time.
In before SCOTUS rules SCOTUS beyond the reach of executive or Congress because of separation of powers.
Is he? I thought that the gift giver has the tax liability, not the recipient.
So, if Harlan gives Clarence an RV then, Harlan pays the tax.
But if Harlan gives Clarence a 250K loan to buy the RV, and forgives the loan, then Clarence pays the tax?
I deleted because it’s complicated. The issue turns on whether it was really a gift (donative intent) versus a forgiven loan. If it was really a gift then Crow has the liability, if not then Thomas has the liability. Either way, it’s gray enough that jack shit will happen.
OK, thanks. I don’t actually know what the rule is. I was just asking.
I mean, if nobody paid tax somebody committed a crime, because the gift exclusion is $18,000 and a forgiven loan is taxable.