World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Since we're talking about a SCOTUS ruling, it would be on Congress to pass legislation.
And to follow up on @teodor_from_achewood@lemmy.world's comment, the Democratic National Committee is a private party organization that supports Democratic candidates in elections. They have nothing to do with passing legislation.
It's on Biden to personally demonstrate to SCOTUS just how dangerous the ruling was.
By calling for drone strikes on SCOTUS, yes.
I deeply disagree with this take. If we actually care about the Constitution and upholding what it stands for, then we have to work to undo the damage caused by this race to the bottom, not participate in it.
Good luck with that. You can "disagree" all the way to the concentration camp.
You know what would be a fantastic way to spur forward legislation and law stopping the president from doing anything bonkers?
Having the president do something bonkers that the evil assholes who are setting the field to make Trump a king, have no choice but to stop.
I like this idea. Republicans are desperate to prosecute the "Biden crime family" but can't go after him because of this ruling. So Biden just has to do a bunch of illegal but non-violent stuff - like openly soliciting bribes - and Republicans would be forced to pass a law.
For that law to be valid, it can't be targeted at one person - called "bill of attainder" - it would apply to all presidents going forward regardless of who's elected.
Hoist them by their own petard.
No, Congress cannot pass legislation on this matter. The ruling says that the Constitution itself grants the President immunity, so it would take a Constitutional amendment to change it.
Sure they can. They can pass legislation that says "The President of the United States of America does not have criminal immunity from official acts taken as President."
Once that's done, a case would have to be identified and charged. The President would need to do something that would be considered a crime, and would be considered an official act, then be charged with that crime. Then it would follow its way through the legal process - district court, appeals court, en banc, eventually landing at the Supreme Court, who would decide whether that legislation was constitutional.
There are plenty of unconstitutional laws still on the books, especially at the state level, "atheists cannot hold public office" is a great example. Of course, those laws are "unenforceable" under normal circumstances; these are not normal circumstances. We've seen how the fascists abuse the legal system. It would not surprise me one bit for them to latch on to one of those "still on the books" unconstitutional laws and attempt to enforce it, because throwing wrenches into the machinery is the point.
Using the "atheists cannot hold public office" example, it would be elementary to cause harm to someone's campaign for elected office just by seeking to enforce an unconstitutional law. Drawing attention to the lack of religious belief in a candidate, forcing said candidate to defend themselves, getting the unwashed masses to go "Yeah! That's what the law says!" because they're too fucking stupid to understand that other court rulings have nullified that law.
Yes, technically they could, but any suit under that law would be vulnerable to getting thrown out on summary judgement. Would you agree that it's more accurate to say that Congress can't fix the system by reverting to the old law?
I'm not sure what you mean by this, can you explain?
They can't take us back to the way things were on June 30th, 2024, to make this ruling like it didn't happen. It doesn't have the power. The best the that Congress can do is pass an unconstitutional law that may, at some future date, through a highly-fraught process in the courts, reverse it.
That's the "right" way, yes. I believe constitutional amendments also begin in Congress.
Constitutional amendment
Still. The DNC has systems in place to decide who to back in elections to pass legislation. Their messaging since 2015 has been embarrassing. They keep courting moderate conservatives that don't exist and ignoring unrepresented potential voters who do. They talk about how they win elections when there's good turn out without ever analyzing which candidates encourage high turnout. Americans want to feel represented in politics and we don't. The Democrats need to do something that would weaken the democrat party but would weaken the Republican party more: they need to actively begin dismantling the two party system. We want election reform. We want the police to not be a hostile force against the general populace. We want the society we live in to benefit everyone and not just the kinds of people who can afford to finance an election campaign.
The polling exists. We all know that neither party represents or enacts what the people want do. The Democrats refuse to look around and see what's happening, preferring to rearrange the deck chairs as the ship sinks because that's the only thing they know to do. And you know? I can't really blame them. We the people have also been rearranging the deck chairs. We live in a country that only benefits the top but we all still show up to do our duties without looking at what's going on in other countries where the people are standing up to their authoritarian oppressors.
The worst part is the fascists know what they're doing. They know to decay the structure by raising the temperature because we've become too complacent. We need to stand up to fascism in a way that we haven't ever since McArthyism.
No it does not.
Then what the fuck is a primary and how do they decide to back in a primary and what the fuck is a super delegate?
What primary?
Bernie lost because he didn't get enough votes.
Ya but was there a thumb on the scale to push people one way?
No
What would you call almost everyone dropping out and backing Biden right before super Tuesday but a thumb on the scale? Less severe but directly traceable to the DNC, what would you call giving debate questions in advance to one candidate but not the other but a thumb on the scale?
This is just what I know of.
Conspiracy theory nonsense.
Sure. And I voted for warren. My point isn't "The DNC needs to get their heads out of their asses and make Bernie their nominee" my point is "The DNC needs to get their heads our of their asses and realize their current overall strategy is a losing one"
Ugh. Stop. Talking. You Fucking. Knob.
Jesus Christ, someone might believe you so talk less. Please.
Please.
EDIT: PLEASE
Nah.
You all will whine and whine and whine but will never do the most basic political organizing.
This is an interpretation of the constitution, so what congress needs to do it to amend the constitution to explicitly state the president is not immune, and good luck getting that through
They can amend it or they can pass law citing a different part of the constitution or other judicial precedent, then if it gets challenged the Supreme Court would have to rule on the constitutionality of it's latest legal justification.
Hopefully after we replace six justices.
Get the fuck out of here.