AOC leads call for federal ethics investigation into Clarence Thomas ( www.theguardian.com )

jordanlund , 10 months ago

Nothing will come of it. The only guardrail on the Supreme Court is impeachment and the Republican led House will not start impeachment hearings on a Republican Judge.

Want to change that? Here’s what needs to happen in 2024:

A Democratic President
A Democratic majority in the House
At LEAST a 60 vote Democratic majority in the Senate.

duderium , 10 months ago

We had that in 2008. What happened next?

jordanlund , 10 months ago

Kennedy died and we lost the 60 votes in the Senate.

duderium , 10 months ago

Kennedy died several months after Obama took office. What were Democrats doing during this time, aside from bailing out bankers and dronestriking weddings?

jordanlund , 10 months ago

Kennedy died in August of 2009, in those 8 months they (and Obama) kind of saved the American economy?

You have to remember, when Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month and the stock market had PLUMMETTED TO $6,500.

They managed to get the Recovery act passed in February, fought by the Republicans every inch of the way:

…wikipedia.org/…/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestme…

Which enabled the Tea Party movement and set the stage for the losses in 2010.

Followed by the “Cash For Clunkers” act in July to prop up the American auto industry, an industry many Republicans (including Mitt Romney) at the time said we should just let die.

en.m.wikipedia.org/…/Car_Allowance_Rebate_System

www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

Then Kennedy died, we lost the 60 vote majority, and Republicans proceeded to use the filibuster more times than all the other Presidential terms combined.

Assian_Candor , 10 months ago

aside from bailing out bankers

silent_water , 10 months ago

saving the economy by throwing poor homeowners under the bus. smdh why can’t leftists just appreciate how much Obama saved the bankers economy

jordanlund , 10 months ago

Which didn’t actually happen, but you do you I guess.

silent_water , 10 months ago

jacobin.com/…/obama-foreclosure-crisis-wealth-ine…

jordanlund , 10 months ago

“The Making Home Affordable initiative of the Secretary of the Treasury, as authorized under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008”

Hmmm… who was President in 2008? 🤔

Now, if you want to argue Obama should have stopped it, well, yeah, there’s a lot of things he should have stopped…

silent_water , 10 months ago

objecting to one line in a rather long article isn’t actually the defense you think it is

JohnBrownsDream , 10 months ago

That’s not a quote that’s even in the article. How about:

Given these differences in wealth portfolios, bailing out financial assets after 2008 while allowing homeowners to drown directly concentrated the national wealth into the hands of the richest white families.

duderium , 10 months ago

Kennedy died in August of 2009, in those 8 months they (and Obama) kind of saved the American economy?

“The economy” meaning rich people’s yacht money?

Which enabled the Tea Party movement and set the stage for the losses in 2010.

You can tell that the Democrats made a massive positive difference in the way that voters threw their asses out of power within two years of Obama’s inauguration, replacing him six years later with a game show host. If that isn’t victory, I don’t know what is!

Can you name a bill the Democrats have passed within the last fifty years that has made a positive difference in your material life as well as the material lives of the people around you? Without doing research?

Why has Biden refused to use the defense production act to pass universal health care? Why hasn’t he packed the courts? Why is it so hard for him to do these things but so easy for him to send tens of billions of dollars to Nazis in Ukraine?

jordanlund , 10 months ago

“The Economy” being the 700,000 people a month losing their jobs under Bush.

Jobs:

…wikipedia.org/…/Job_losses_caused_by_the_Great_R…

January 2009 – 818,000 jobs lost
February 2009 – 724,000 jobs lost
March 2009 – 799,000 jobs lost
April 2009 – 692,000 jobs lost
May 2009 – 361,000 jobs lost
June 2009 – 482,000 jobs lost
July 2009 – 339,000 jobs lost
August 2009 – 222,000 jobs lost
September 2009 – 199,000 jobs lost
October 2009 – 202,000 jobs lost[3]
November 2009 - 64,000 jobs created[4]
December 2009 - 109,000 jobs lost[4]

Vs Economy:

www.cbpp.org/sites/default/…/6-6-19budf1.png?itok…

duderium , 10 months ago

If the Democrats were actually making things better, why did voters throw them out of congress within two years?

h3doublehockeysticks , 10 months ago

Actually you only need 50 senators and then you just put in 50 judges. And oh hey what’s this, the DC statehood bill passed the house?

Actually doing something would be easy. But they don’t actually want to.

SweaterWeather , 10 months ago

Can you link me a member of Democrat party leadership saying they’d impeach Thomas?

jordanlund , 10 months ago

We aren’t talking about Democratic leadership, we’re talking about AOC.

p.s. “Democrat Party” gives your bias away, it’s the Democratic Party.

came_apart_at_Kmart , 10 months ago

no that would be a “no, there isn’t one.” then?

jordanlund , 10 months ago

No it’s a “I’m not letting you be a sea lion and hijack the conversation.”

If you have something on point to say, great. If you don’t? Exit’s over there…

Grownbravy , 10 months ago

Stop being a worm and answer the question

came_apart_at_Kmart , 10 months ago

did you not see that he is in charge of internet conversations and is using his legal authority to quash this entire line of inquiry?

our only recourse is to wait for the next election and vote out his Pedantic Liberal Party in favor of a nebulous alternative and hope their platform includes a plank to revisit this issue at a later date.

SweaterWeather , 10 months ago

So if the Democratic party leadership won’t commit to impeachment how is voting for them going to change the status quo of not impeaching judges?

You said if you want to change this, you need this many Democrats. But the Democrats aren’t saying they’re going to change it. And presumably they know more about their intentions than you.

Also you need 2/3 majority to convict. So you might want to revise your numbers.

Edited to fix a typo

macabrett , 10 months ago

p.s. “Democrat Party” gives your bias away, it’s the Democratic Party.

Is the bias that they’re a communist or an anarchist? Because that’s what most people on our instance are. It’s not like we’re hiding it.