But once again, the letter—which TNR viewed—offered little additional clarity.
so by “taking a turn” they mean remains on the exact same path with no new developments.
But once again, I hate modern journalism
I hate the 24 hour news cycle too, but this is worth keeping in the back of your mind. When politicians start asking these questions publicly but it doesn’t seem like anything’s changed, it’s because we’re missing information.
It’s one real news piece, followed by 20 people’s response to that news piece, followed by manufactured drama about those opinions, over and over again.
I thought “the turn” was that he was actually being investigated for it.
Agreed 100%. OTOH - keeping people engaged and thinking about these gross ethics violations are good for our elections. Republicans are winning the hearts and minds of the electorate as they up the ante on terrible acts. This will hopefully not let these assholes get off the hook.
Also… I don’t know this publisher’s ethics standards or motives. Just wishful thinking
keeping people engaged and thinking about these gross ethics violations are good for our elections
in an ideal world. but you even show that you know it doesnt work in the next sentence, these stories do not stop coming out but republicans are not being written off despite them. To republicans its all justified to own the libs, and to people like me, it’s just showing impotence of democrats. I only care about these stories if consequences are happening, not empty threats and criticisms.
There are a lot of better examples of journalism than NewRepublic.
By all means post one.
Mother Jones, Al Jazeera, prospect.org, The Washington Post most of the time
New York Times and New Republic have taken on some sort of weird corruption recently, and thehill.com has fully embraced the darkness
Al Jazeera is kind of funny.
I responded to someone who has 3 posts in their history, but is sure they know what to post.
The main thing we need to do to fix journalism is crowdsource the titles. But how to make that happen? I dunno.
r/savedyouaclick was pretty good at this, I’d say
I always wonder how you get that many up votes in 30 minutes.
people coming in annoyed with the clickbait and finding the comment that vindicates them.
See there, already an up votes. Whatever suits your fancy, I guess. A bit like like masterbation.
I mean unless there are consequences, it doesn’t mean shit.
That’s the disturbing part!
title didn’t tell me what the article was about, didn’t click
Thomas is refusing to say whether he paid the $264k loan on his RV or whether his rich buddy gave it to him for free. If it was the latter, he should be paying taxes on it, which means a Supreme Court justice may be involved in felony tax evasion.
Wasn’t his corruption already disturbing?
I wonder which road his RV took with that turn. Must have gone offroad with it and ended in a swamp ?
As usual, Biden’s Justice Department is missing in action. After four years, we’re still waiting on any form of accountability for Trump. Thomas can rest easy.
I don’t think the DOJ can take on SCOTUS. For that you need Congress
The only thing Congress is needed for is to impeach and remove him. And since we know the chances of that happening are exactly zero, that makes them completely useless.
SC judges aren’t immune to the law. The DOJ absolutely can investigate, arrest, and charge him just like they can any other citizen. Now, I’m not saying they will; I’m just saying they can. And if they had anything resembling balls, they would, and then Congress can then decide if they want a Supreme Court judge making rulings from inside a jail cell.
But this is the Merrick Garland DOJ, which means he’s too afraid to mention Thomas’ name, let alone investigate him. And we all know Congress ain’t doing squat.
If he was found guilty of a crime, couldn’t he then be removed from office? The Constitution says that they “shall hold their Office during Good Behavior”. Surely being convicted of a crime would be the opposite of “Good Behavior” and disqualify them from office.
DOJ may not be able to do anything about Justices taking money from plaintiffs or other ethics violations, but they can certainly enforce the tax code.
That’s the part I’m interested in, I’df there’s really a tax issue. Maybe he really didn’t understand justices had to have ethics and morals, avoid corruption and conflicts of interest, and were just there to solicit gifts from plaintiffs, but how can he explain away if he didn’t pay taxes?
They have to get a referral from the IRS.
Source?
Who could’ve predicted that an AG that is part of the federalist society would go easy on a fellow federalist society member.
