The conservative justice was not present for oral arguments on Monday, but the court did not provide a reason why.

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was not present at the court for oral arguments on Monday, with the court giving no reason for his absence.

Chief Justice John Roberts said in court that Thomas “is not on the bench today” but would “participate fully” in the two cases being argued based on the briefs and transcripts.

A court spokeswoman had no further information.

Thomas, 75, is the eldest of the nine justices. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Right, I’ll blame them for being milquetoast, waffling, and ineffectual when it comes to Republican fuckery.

    Because being milquetoast, waffling, and ineffectual essentially enables Republican fuckery.

    • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I hear this opinion a lot, and I always ask what specifically would you have them do? They don’t control the house, so if they can’t get Republicans to go along they can’t pass any legislation. That’s just reality.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/16/politics/immigration-senate-democrats-parliamentarian-build-back-better/index.html

        I’m sorry, but the Republicans would have fucking just steamrolled the parliamentarian, and the fact that the Democrats wouldn’t shows their milquetoast, waffling, ineffectual cowardice.

        This is just one of many examples where they are unwilling to fight when and where it matters.


        We could also talk about the recent immigration bill, a bill that hands Republicans exactly what they want in respect to immigration, a bill that basically says “Fuck them DREAMers” that the Democrats leaned on so hard in the last few election cycles. I get that the immigration bill was paired with Ukraine aid as a “poison pill” to get it passed, but there’s the rub: is passing bad legislation because Republicans want it and we think it’s the only way to get “good legislation” passed really the best solution if it leaves us with bad legislation as law?

        I think it’s pretty straightforwardly fuckin clear that it is not in our best interests to hand them whatever they want when it comes to their LIES about the border and immigration. But what do I know, I guess I must just be talking out of my ass or something. Give me a break.


        There was also the unwillingness to prosecute Bush & Cheney for war crimes. “We need to look forward, not backward.” Why do you think they are so hesitant to prosecute Trump? They didn’t want to prosecute war crimes when it came to Bush & Cheney.

        I could keep going…


        Democrats have literally spent my entire adult life PRETENDING that Republicans are operating in good faith when every available piece of evidence screams bloody murder that the Republicans are not acting in good faith.

        Why do we keep praising Democrats for trying to shake hands with people who keep kicking them in the balls?

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          I’m sorry, but the Republicans would have fucking just steamrolled the parliamentarian, and the fact that the Democrats wouldn’t shows their milquetoast, waffling, ineffectual cowardice.

          So they should have violated the rules of the Senate? They have a razor thin majority, 48 Dems and 3 independents. You would need all of them to be willing to violate the Senate rules to pass immigration as a reconciliation bill.

          We could also talk about the recent immigration bill

          So you go from being upset that they didn’t try to pass an immigration bill to upset that they did. The Democrats negotiated with Republicans to achieve one of two outcomes, either the Republicans go along with it and it removes the issue from the election or the Republicans torpedo it and they go into the election season having been given everything they wanted and refused it. It’s gamesmanship.

          There was also the unwillingness to prosecute Bush & Cheney for war crimes.

          And what court exactly would have allowed the destruction of presidential immunity for official presidential acts? The correct answer is none.

          Democrats have literally spent my entire adult life PRETENDING that Republicans are operating in good faith when every available piece of evidence screams bloody murder that the Republicans are not acting in good faith.

          Who has claimed this? The Republicans have become a party of obstructionism. They do not care if the government functions. That means they aren’t willing to compromise and they will use every lever of government to sabotage any work done.

          If the Republicans control either chamber of the legislature, nothing can get done. If there is a republican president, nothing will get done. Your solutions are ill conceived and don’t address reality. If you just want to be angry, go ahead. Throw in a “both sides are the same” while you’re at it. I prefer pragmatism and reality.

      • PapaStevesy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        I don’t know, I’m not a lifelong politician or law expert. But c’mon, they are! Do some fucking politicking! I find it beyond reason that there was nothing they could do, but also nothing they could do to stop Trump. As far as I care, Obama just gave it away for absolutely nothing. They didn’t fight it because they thought Hilary would win and now we’re just legally fucked for decades.

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          8 months ago

          So you are completely ignorant as to how Congress functions, but you’re also somehow positive they could have done something? That’s such confused thinking. Perhaps figure out what could have been done before complaining that it wasn’t done.

          • PapaStevesy
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            They could have “convinced” Mitch McConnell not to block the nomination by any thousands of legal, illegal, and extra-legal means. All I’m saying is, when corporate America is in trouble, it truly seems like anything is possible. When actual American lives are at stake, they just shrug and bemoan the rules they’re in charge of making and enforcing.

            • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              They could have “convinced” Mitch McConnell not to block the nomination by any thousands of legal, illegal, and extra-legal means.

              No, they couldn’t.

              All I’m saying is, when corporate America is in trouble, it truly seems like anything is possible.

              Yes, because Democrats want to help people, and Republicans only care about ultra wealthy people and corporations. Corporate America is the overlap in this particular Venn diagram.

              When actual American lives are at stake, they just shrug and bemoan the rules they’re in charge of making and enforcing.

              Republicans do that and block help. See Republicans with the recent bridge collapse all the way back to super storm Sandy.

              • PapaStevesy
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                No they couldn’t.

                Good one. What your argument fails to take into account is yes they could.

        • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Hillary literally had a strategy to elevate Donald Trump in the primaries because she thought he would be easier to beat than Geb Bush, who is who she (incorrectly) assumed she would be up against.

          I think people really underestimate how pissed people were that we were about to have another Bush v. Clinton match up and didn’t want political dynasties.

          Of course, the people most angry about it seemingly voted in a man who wants nothing but to create his own endless political dynasty of the Dictatorship variety.