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

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.

  • PapaStevesyEnglish
    79·
    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
      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.

      • PapaStevesyEnglish
        67·
        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
          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.

          • PapaStevesyEnglish
            11·
            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.zoneEnglish
      53·
      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.