News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
So I guess they're targeting lawsuits in multiple federal districts, in hopes that having consistent rulings across the districts will appeal to the SCOTUS thin concern of legitimacy and they'll either refuse an appeal or uphold the lower court rulings against Trump?
The second the Supreme Court rules a section of the constitution that is in plain language is invalid will throw out what little credibility they had left. And will lead to states ignoring them entirely. It's not gonna be a pretty decade.
They already disregarded the 14th amendment last year when they ruled that Colorado and other states couldn't keep an insurrectionist of the ballot.
I seem to remember those decisions were made during the primaries and were not retried for the general election. Honestly not sure though.
They basically said it wasn't up to a state to decide if someone could run for a federal office. Instead it would require an act of Congress.
Which was odd, since the amendment says that Congress can act to override the decision to bar an insurrectionist running for office.
So yeah, this court has shown they are all about intentionally misinterpreting the 14th amendment. They won't save us from the worst of MAGA.
I swear they're going to argue the founders themselves misinterpreted the language of the constitution and the amendments are all invalid and no longer applicable.
That's what I'm thinking regarding the locations the law suits are being filed in. Traditionally (I know, didn't matter with Roe) one predictor if SCOTUS will take an appeal is if there are conflicting rulings being made in different states/districts.
More or less, yes. When the circuits are in agreement, it's still not binding on SCOTUS, but traditionally it's been powerfully persuasive. If they can get a similar ruling out of the 5th or 11th, then even for this court it's likely game over, eventually. The gross thing is the cruelty and uncertainty of the Trumpian attitude towards the rule of law, which is simply, "I know what it says. Fuck it. Make 'em sue me." It's in bad faith and erodes the simple, predictable functioning of government, to say nothing of, y'know, being directed towards evil ends.
SCOTUS is very conservative and increasingly activist about it, but Roberts in particular doesn't like being dragged through the political mud and he can usually prevail upon Kavanaugh or Barrett to be less crazy for a day. Roe was a special case in that it extended the legal idea of the "penumbra," which was by definition fuzzy, and I learned about attacks on the idea over twenty years ago, so the Democrats bear a certain amount of blame for not spending some political capital at some point to ensconce it in statute, if not in an Amendment (which admittedly may have been a bridge too far). It was always a bit fragile. RBG also did her legacy no favors by being short-sighted about how her successor would be selected.
Anyway, all the "But dis iz whut it sez!" reasoning from the Second Amendment cases mostly works against MAGA here. The idea that you're not subject to America's laws because you broke one of them when entering the country is pretty absurd, and that concept only works in a context of international law. It was meant for Diplomats and their families with immunity, and for Female troops or officially-employed camp followers of another nation's invading army (operating on the assumption here that "traditional" war pregnancies will involve mothers who are subject to the jurisdiction of the US) - also Native Americans, but we "fixed" that in 1924 at least. There was no significant bar to immigration at the federal level when the 14th amendment was drafted, but super racist senators explicitly whined that Chinese immigrants' kids would become citizens, and others said, "Yeah? And?" Add in various court decisions over the decades since that have clarified who is and isn't subject to jurisdiction, and it should be a settled question. There's a dissent here and there, and an occasional whinge from the right, but there is very little for an "Originalist" court to complain about here, at least legitimately.