this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
853 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3797 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will introduce legislation Thursday reaffirming that presidents do not have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month. 

Schumer’s No Kings Act would attempt to invalidate the decision by declaring that presidents are not immune from criminal law and clarifying that Congress, not the Supreme Court, determines to whom federal criminal law is applied.

The court’s conservative majority decided July 1 that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken within their official duties — a decision that threw into doubt the Justice Department’s case against Republican former President Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Schumer, of New York, said that Congress has an obligation and the constitutional authority to check the Supreme Court on its decision.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 29 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Certainly not going to pass (1) as long as there is a filibuster in the Senate and (2) as long as Republicans control the House.

Of course even if it does pass someday, what does anyone think the odds are that there would be 5 votes on the current SCOTUS to uphold it?

But I'm all for making Republicans block it.

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 36 points 3 months ago (2 children)

it's to make republicans unambiguously invalidate their own "we don't want a dictatorship" claims

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

They don’t want a dictatorship? I pretty much thought they’ve been staying they want their dictatorship.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip -1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

And what does that accomplish?

trump is already telling his followers to elect him and never have to vote again. project 2025 is a similar shitfest.

This is the usual Democrat "we care about decorum". It doesn't impact the base of either party. And the "independent" voters aren't actually all that independent and either already realize "Holy shit, this matters" or "Whatever. Douche and a turd sandwich".

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

it seems like nothing accomplishes anything anymore: impeachments, convictions, even his own constant unintentional self sabotage doesn't sink him

doesn't mean anyone should stop trying

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

It allows Democrats to run adds showing the middle-of-the-road, undecided voters what they're going to get if they keep letting Republicans get elected. Those are the votes that we need to strive for. You will never convert Trump's cult followers. It's the independent voters that can save this nation but we have to get their attention and show them that what's happening is not normal.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 5 points 3 months ago

But I’m all for making Republicans block it.

They just blocked the moonshot program to find a cure for cancer.

There is nothing that is blow them as they have massive propaganda outlets to give them cover. Only the conservatives who look outside their propaganda bubble will even understand what happened.

(I fully realize they see "us" in the exact same way.)

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

What's the actual rationale though?

For the cancer research, it was ostensibly too expensive. But what is the excuse now?