this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
1206 points (98.1% liked)

World News

39127 readers
2936 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“(With) today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. It’s a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law even including the supreme court of the United States.”

Throughout his address, Biden underscored the gravity of the moment, emphasizing that the only barrier to the president’s authority now lies in the personal restraint of the officeholder. He warned vehemently against the prospect of Trump returning to power, painting a stark picture of the dangers such an outcome could pose.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] snooggums@midwest.social 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Jackson added, for sure.

Kagan no way.

Kagan has sided with conservatives way too many times with the "look, their conclusion is poorly reasoned and unconstitutional, but you can technically get to the conclusion constitutionally from a liberal perspective if..." and then she sides with the conservatives.

Poking around in legal details can be fun, but she can be a professor while we get someone taking action on the court instead of siding with employer-imposed religious mandates over employee bodily autonomy (hobby lobby), supporting the "Muslim ban"(trump via Hawaii), and crippling contract law so that class action lawsuits can't be brought against corporations over faulty or illegal contracts. (American Express versus Italian colors).

Kagan is not helping people, get someone on there who wants to help people.