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.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    0·
    7 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.

    • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
      0·
      7 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.