719
all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 142 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

"nah we like kings"

-"Republicans"

I think that's exactly the point though right?

Blocking this legislation will be an emphatic statement to that effect.

[-] modifier@lemmy.ca 40 points 1 month ago

Which their base will eat up. Shit is weird right now.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

Fuck their base. Take the middle of the electorate by shining a light on the weird old tyrant and you win the white house

At this point, maybe the best we can do is to ensure history judges them harshly.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

"By the way, what's a republic?"

[-] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

ThErE's A dIffErEnCE bETwEeN a RePuBlIC aNd a DeMoCrACy

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 5 points 1 month ago

The worst thing about conservatives is you never really know who's the idiotic parrot and who's the lying fascist because there's so much overlap in the diagram.

[-] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Benedict Arnold was a Republican.

[-] SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

I thought he was American?

[-] Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 points 1 month ago

As a republican from Australia, they’re a disgrace to the cause.

[-] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 106 points 1 month ago

It is nuts that this act even has to be put forward. These conservative frauds claim to look at the original intent of the constitution. Making the president above the law is literally the exact opposite to what we fought and died for with England. These justices are traitors.

[-] Lojcs@lemm.ee 46 points 1 month ago

President Joe Biden, a Democrat

In case we didn't know

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

By all means let people know which side is the anti-king side as much as possible.

[-] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

For the outsiders looking at American politics but doesn't know even the basics of it, that could be beneficial. My Polish friend doesn't even know who Kamala Harris is nor has even heard about her.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 32 points 1 month ago

Very positive news.

This was not just a trrmp decision and shouldn't be seen as one.

It is a way for conservatives to take control of the government directly and without recourse in the event they get back into power, no matter who their demagogue of the year is.

For the American government to regain any semblance of a representative democracy, presidential immunity needs to be struck down or illegalized.

[-] huginn@feddit.it 31 points 1 month ago

[...] Schumer has written into the bill "jurisdiction stripping" measures that would remove the Supreme Court's authority to render the legislation unconstitutional, and allow only lower courts in the District of Columbia to handle a legal challenge. Such jurisdiction stripping has been seldom used in the past and would likely be highly controversial.

TIL Jurisdiction Stripping - Wild I thought that Sup Court always had that check on Congress.

[-] nickhammes@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

IANAL, but to my understanding, SCOTUS is defined by the constitution and given certain powers and protections, to interpret the constitution, mediate disputes between the political branches, and certain duties given to its chief Justice. Congress is given broad powers to set the laws, which includes details of how branches are run, like creating departments in the Executive, and setting the number of Justices on SCOTUS.

If I understand Jurisdiction Stripping correctly, it's not preventing SCOTUS from eventually reviewing the case, but a law that says they don't get the first review of legal challenges. It could slow the process, at the very least.

[-] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Didn't they largely establish that power themselves through Marbury vs Madison in 1803?

That elevation / clarity of their authority wasn't a massive problem until the last 10 or so years when they started going off the deep-end.

[-] nickhammes@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Yeah Marbury v Madison found that congress can decide which cases SCOTUS reviews directly, vs where the authority of lower courts starts. But it's not in conflict with the other principle from Marbury v Madison, that SCOTUS has the power to review whether laws are constitutional or not. If I understand correctly, at least.

Before Trump, the worst issue the growing authority of the court caused was a shift from Congress making major policy changes, to SCOTUS. Congress changing that could be a change for the better in the long run.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago

Common Dreams Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

Name: Common Dreams Bias: Left
Factual Reporting: High
Country: United States of America
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/common-dreams/

Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News


Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.

Footer

Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.

[-] smock9@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
719 points (99.0% liked)

News

22877 readers
2767 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS