this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
834 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19125 readers
4122 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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will introduce legislation Thursday reaffirming that presidents do not have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month. 

Schumer’s No Kings Act would attempt to invalidate the decision by declaring that presidents are not immune from criminal law and clarifying that Congress, not the Supreme Court, determines to whom federal criminal law is applied.

The court’s conservative majority decided July 1 that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken within their official duties — a decision that threw into doubt the Justice Department’s case against Republican former President Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Schumer, of New York, said that Congress has an obligation and the constitutional authority to check the Supreme Court on its decision.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 245 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Who could possibly vote against not having a king? I'll go get my surprised face ready.

[–] kbin_space_program@kbin.run 112 points 2 months ago (4 children)

The democrats after the GOP add a whole ton of riders to it to make it a poison pill.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 64 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Thanks, I realize now that in my rush to be humorously cynical, I was actually understating how bad things are.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 48 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Soon to be named the "No Kings, Queers, Trans, Ukraine Aid, Unmarried Women, No-Fault Divorce, JD Vance Couch-Fucking Jokes, And We Were Just Kidding About The No Kings Thing" Act.

[–] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

Renamed ‘the inclusion act’ or some reversal drivel like citizens United or other similar

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

Bold of you to assume this makes it out of committee

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

What, you want us to have a king? (Or federal mandatory ten commandments posted in schools, birth control to be made illegal, and an MPAA surveillance program to be required for every PC?)

Only one yes or no, please.

[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 12 points 2 months ago

Yeah, and who could vote against being a Patriot? Man, that Patriot act sure did wonders.

[–] nkat2112@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago

Brilliantly stated.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Who could possibly vote against not having a king?

Besides a king?

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You may be making a joke, I'm not sure, but, in case you're not, this line of thinking is often used by governments to push through legislation whose content would otherwise be objectionable. It's akin to just reading the headline of a news article without reading its content. An example could be something like "The Patriot Act": "Who could possibly vote against patriotism at a time like this?" — look at its content. One could also look at the COVID relief bills and notice just how much content has absolutely nothing to do with COVID relief. The names of legislative bills are manufactured for the very purpose of appealing to one's emotions and to distract from objectionable content.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

My humor can be awkwardly multifaceted. I know the internet likes jokes to be obvious, but I have found this difficult.