• MyOpinion
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    106
    ·
    4 months 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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    President Joe Biden, a Democrat

    In case we didn’t know

    • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months 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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    4 months 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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    4 months 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.

    • nfh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        4 months 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.

        • nfh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months 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.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    4 months 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.

  • pelletbucket
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    81
    ·
    4 months ago

    okay so we’re not talking about Amy Schumer

    • pelletbucket
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      52
      ·
      4 months ago

      you guys get upset about the weirdest things

      • Irremarkable@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        It’s more that it’s entirely irrelevant and adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

        It might have landed if she had been at all relevant in any even somewhat recent time.

        • pelletbucket
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          4 months ago

          I wasn’t trying to be funny. I’m pretty stoned and I had to stare at the headline for quite a while before I could remember Chuck Schumer’s name

        • pelletbucket
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          okay, genuine question, is that what people think my comment is saying?

              • lobut@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                4 months ago

                I interpreted your comment as the article not specifying which Schumer and you picked out a famous Schumer not associated with politics as a little bit of fun.

                I could be wrong … I think many people have been dog-piling her comedy for a while and I think others thought you were dog whistling.

                I mean, this is just coming from someone on the outside of this.

          • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Amy Schumer, while she does have bad comedy, is constantly the target of reactionaries and chuds who think all women aren’t funny and point to her as justificatiom for their shitty worldview. The entire thing has been beaten to death for over a decade. Making fun of her, and by extension women comedians, was barely worthy of breathing slightly faster through the nose almost a decade ago, now making fun of Schumer is even more stale than her comedy.

            • pelletbucket
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              for like the 50th time, I wasn’t making fun of her and I wasn’t making a joke. the fact that everybody read it as a very specific attack on her is fucking bizarre. this entire thread feels like I’m on Reddit

          • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Oh I agree there are plenty of women who are funny, and Amy Schumer is not particularly funny. But Amy Schumer is also the one that dumbasses point to to be all “hur dur waminz isn’t funnee because shoomer is bad!!”

        • pelletbucket
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          lol you can delete all you want but my notification history log remembers