NotAnotherLemmyUser

Still issues here, but modlogs are mostly public, and anyone can verify what you actually said by looking at the logs. Definitely makes it easier over at !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com to see what's going on.

Oh I'm not pretending that at all and I don't see how I implied that in any way. What I'm trying point out is that you'll have precedence on your side when going to court if the FTC does the same thing for a Republican measure.

What do you mean by "people like you?"

I'm not against the click-to-cancel rule, we definitely need something like that.

As for economic effect... That isn't something the court should be concerned with anyway!

The court ruling wasn't on the economic effect of the click-to-cancel rule. The ruling was that the FTC skipped their own requirements to make this rule.

Engadget seems to have the least amount of information on this topic. The Ars Technica article went into a lot more detail.

I think this is bad in the short term, but good in the long run. The ruling doesn't stop the FTC from going through the process again for the Click-to-Cancel rule. They just have to follow the correct procedures. In this case they underestimated the annual economic effect that their rule would have, and at a certain threshold they are required to have a preliminary regulatory analysis for a rule.

The administration can weaponize the FTC if they really want to, so the courts ruling that the FTC has to follow the correct procedures helps to at least keep some things in check.

on it, but the tax could accumulate for when/if you do sell it.

That's already how tax works on selling a home (in the U.S.) It's called a Capital Gains Tax.

You can't just raise the taxes every year for what a home is worth to the market (I mean, you can, but then if someone has retired you're forcing them to pay more money every year as their home goes up in value). If you're just living off of social security, you don't have that kind of flexibility.

If you have a lot of time and enough conviction:

Lobbying, petitions, run a non-profit organization to do so.

It takes a lot of time and it's frustrating, but look at what individuals like Louis Rossmann and Ross Scott have been able to pull off with Right to Repair and the Stop Killing Games Movement.

If you don't have as much time:

Donate some time to projects to help out. For example, take a look at some of the projects listed underneath "Climate" category on Zooniverse: https://www.zooniverse.org/projects?discipline=climate

Here's a description of the project, "ClimateViz":

Extract information from various climate scientific graphics to combat misinformation and support scientific communication

Make federal service required for anyone to obtain "full citizenship".

It's not a "new red line". This is something that has already been tested in the courts because of a law written during WWII. It's only allowed in very narrow circumstances.

For instance:
If someone serves in a foreign military/government and they still have citizenship and it can be proven that it was voluntary.

The same law that allowed for that also attempted to allow for denaturalization in cases where someone:

• Deserted military service during wartime.
• Voted in a foreign election.
  But these were both found to be unconstitutional.

Legal Eagle talked about those cases here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS-for7pUxU&t=980s

I'm not happy about this either, but let's just make sure we're all on the same page here:

They ended the ability of the Judiciary to check the Executive.

No, they ended the ability of the lower courts to check the executive nationwide. The supreme court can still check the executive (and the US Court of Appeals?).

Now I'm trying to figure out if the lower courts can still check the executive, but only in their respective areas, or if they can make a decision, but it has to be confirmed by (at least?) the court of appeals.

From what I'm reading here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/

It looks like a lower court can still request to check the executive, but the higher courts will need to grant it. At least according to Kavanaugh's opinion:

the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court will inevitably weigh in on district court decisions granting or denying requests for preliminary injunctions.

Time to start requesting visits every single day so they can actually drop in whenever they want to (as they should be able to).

The only exception to this would be for motorcycles. I get that they want to be heard so that some driver doesn't pull out right in front and cut them off, or attempt to change lanes right into them.

It's a potentially life saving tactic.

Finally? He's already been impeached. Twice.

The next step would be to have him removed from office, but that requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate to agree on it.

If you're in California, flying the California flag is probably the best option here.