this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
58 points (93.9% liked)

politics

19104 readers
3991 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
 

In remarks at a judicial conference in Minnesota, Kavanaugh touted the court’s mixed decision votes this past term and his close relationships with other justices.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MicroWave@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He also said that when he joined the court, he was surprised by the amount of time the justices spent together. He said he estimated they probably eat lunch together about 65 times a year, adding, “And the rule at lunch is you can’t talk about work.”

“It’s a good rule,” he continued. “It builds relationships and friendships and then when we have tough cases — and we only really have tough cases — you have a reservoir of good will toward each of the other people.”

[–] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 27 points 1 year ago

And yet there are a striking number of high profile cases decided on a party line 6/3 vote. They can tout the supposed impartiality of the court all they like, but the numbers show otherwise.

Toss in the refusal to have a hearing on Garland with nearly a year left of Obama's term, then rushing Kavanaugh in, and of course changing tune when RBG died at the end of Trump's term to claim it was important to seat someone right away where both politcally motivated. Had none of the above nonsense happened the slant of the court would be much different now.

[–] ivanafterall@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How many of those 65 lunches are on a private yacht belonging to one of the justices' donors?

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thos lunches are off the books.

I had a state supreme court justice do me a solid one time. I brought her office staff donuts as a thank you and she refused them to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

These justices taking lavish vacations know exactly what they are doing.