The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to block court orders requiring Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to turn over documents about its operations to a government watchdog group.
That makes sense when you consider they’ve been there the longest and are thus the most exposed to corruption. I read something not that long ago that said the biggest correlation between corruption and being a politician was amount of time in office. Which is self-evident really but it’s fascinating to know that it’s a statistic. Really speaks toward the need for term limits.
I don’t disbelieve you, but I think a huge part of the mis/disinformation problem right now is that we can just say “I read something not that long ago that said [something that sounds true and confirms 90% of readers’ pre-existing bias]” and it’ll be uncritically accepted.
If we don’t know where it’s published, who published it, who wrote it, when it was written, what degree of correlation was established, the methodology to establish correlation, how it defines corruption, what kind and how many politicians over what time period and from where, or even if this comment accurately recalls what you read, then it’s about the same as pulling a Senator Armstrong even if it means well. And if anyone does step in to disagree, an absence of sources invites them to counterargue based on vibes and citing random anecdotes instead of empirical data.
What can I immediately find? An anti-term limits opinion piece from Anthony Fowler of the University of Chicago which does do a good job citing its sources but doesn’t seem to say anything about this specific claim. Likewise, this analysis in the European Journal of Political Economy which posits that term limits increase corruption but in return decrease the magnitude of the corruption because of an inability to develop connections.
Internet comments aren’t a thesis defense. But I think for anything to get better, we need to challenge ourselves to create a healthy information ecosystem where we still can.
Two were appointed by the current sitting president in his last term.
Eta, I’m surprisingly more impressed with Barrett, since it appears like she may have been sincere, in her confirmation hearing. This doesn’t mean I’m pleased with all her opinions, just that she’s shown more integrity than I originally expected.
This is why conservatives win. Dumbasses will say things like how acb is principled and cares, just like y’all did with pence and Romney and fucking bush of all people.
about the rule of law, specifically, not necessarily about anything else. Like people who were fine with the Nazis…as long as they did everything legally.
They just had a ruling on a religious issue, and the evangelicals thought she’d be a slam dunk vote, and she recusedherself, forcing the issue to remain with a lower appellate court, where the case was lost. She didn’t vote against it, but she still voted for it to lose.
Thomas and Alito would be fine with a fascist dictatorship. The rest are hit or miss.
Crazy that it’s the Bush appointees though isn’t it?
That makes sense when you consider they’ve been there the longest and are thus the most exposed to corruption. I read something not that long ago that said the biggest correlation between corruption and being a politician was amount of time in office. Which is self-evident really but it’s fascinating to know that it’s a statistic. Really speaks toward the need for term limits.
I don’t disbelieve you, but I think a huge part of the mis/disinformation problem right now is that we can just say “I read something not that long ago that said [something that sounds true and confirms 90% of readers’ pre-existing bias]” and it’ll be uncritically accepted.
If we don’t know where it’s published, who published it, who wrote it, when it was written, what degree of correlation was established, the methodology to establish correlation, how it defines corruption, what kind and how many politicians over what time period and from where, or even if this comment accurately recalls what you read, then it’s about the same as pulling a Senator Armstrong even if it means well. And if anyone does step in to disagree, an absence of sources invites them to counterargue based on vibes and citing random anecdotes instead of empirical data.
What can I immediately find? An anti-term limits opinion piece from Anthony Fowler of the University of Chicago which does do a good job citing its sources but doesn’t seem to say anything about this specific claim. Likewise, this analysis in the European Journal of Political Economy which posits that term limits increase corruption but in return decrease the magnitude of the corruption because of an inability to develop connections.
Internet comments aren’t a thesis defense. But I think for anything to get better, we need to challenge ourselves to create a healthy information ecosystem where we still can.
Two were appointed by the current sitting president in his last term.
Eta, I’m surprisingly more impressed with Barrett, since it appears like she may have been sincere, in her confirmation hearing. This doesn’t mean I’m pleased with all her opinions, just that she’s shown more integrity than I originally expected.
Weird idealist types.
I’ve been most surprised by ACB. Of all his nominees she seems most independent.
Surprisingly, she’s turned out to be principled and cares about the rule of law. I can see why Trump regrets appointing her.
This is why conservatives win. Dumbasses will say things like how acb is principled and cares, just like y’all did with pence and Romney and fucking bush of all people.
Y’all are fucking stupid.
about the rule of law, specifically, not necessarily about anything else. Like people who were fine with the Nazis…as long as they did everything legally.
Tell me you don’t understand nuance.
They just had a ruling on a religious issue, and the evangelicals thought she’d be a slam dunk vote, and she recused herself, forcing the issue to remain with a lower appellate court, where the case was lost. She didn’t vote against it, but she still voted for it to lose.
Plus, 5 out of the 9 are corrupt. They are easily bought.
I’d say that all 9 are corrupt, but to different degrees. Iirc, rejection of ethics oversight was unanimous.
True, true, but I couldn’t find this level of corruption for the 4 not listed.
True indeed.