this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
290 points (96.2% liked)

politics

30907 readers
1824 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

SC justices don't do name calling on news shows, they file dissenting opinions. Every SC justice ruled to limit the legal hole Bruen left except for Thomas who thought the guy should be able to keep his guns.

They're not fighting over bruen then. Do you have any dissenting opinion pieces they have written?

If you remove all context you can create a banger slogan. You're right, if you discard the sentences bracketing what you originally posted, you're left with only the piece you posted.

Nothing I've posted has been taken out of context. It's very very clear what both of those letters meant.

[–] turmacar@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Do you have any dissenting opinion pieces they have written?

In the ruling? In the article? United States v. Rahimi. Court rulings aren't yea/nea votes. They are very explicitly arguing over why/how broadly they think Bruen, which Thomas wrote, should be interpreted in this case and going forward.

Focusing on the words on the page to the exclusion of where/when/why the letters were written is taking them out of context. Just reading the text, it sure seems like Jonathan Swift is really in favor of eating babies.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

In the ruling? In the article? United States v. Rahimi. Court rulings aren't yea/nea votes. They are very explicitly arguing over why/how broadly they think Bruen, which Thomas wrote, should be interpreted in this case and going forward.

So you don't, just say that. We're not talking about the rahimi ruling. You don't need to explain how a ruling works and yes they do still "vote" on a ruling. They don't all just write opinions and then magically uphold or strike down a ruling...

Focusing on the words on the page to the exclusion of where/when/why the letters were written is taking them out of context. Just reading the text, it sure seems like Jonathan Swift is really in favor of eating babies.

No it's not, you're literally trying to make it something its not. You're assessment that Jefferson was anti gun is completely incorrect.