451
Republican attacks on Kamala Harris to get ‘as ugly and bigoted as they can’
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
451 points (97.9% liked)
News
23296 readers
3284 users here now
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. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. 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.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The recent supreme court case reverses that
Do you mean the Raimondo decision? That has no direct bearing. At worst, it means the FTC rule is more susceptible to challenge. But if you look at the actual court cases, it is being upheld. One judge in Texas temporarily delayed the ban for a small number of employers, and that is the biggest challenge so far.
So what you're saying is that conservatives are once again holding up stop signs when progress presents itself.
Because Democrats let them because they refused to attempt Court packing, which is the only way to stop the fascist agenda.
I'm for it, but increasing the size requires a Congressional majority. Sadly, we're not there. FDR took a run at it and fractured the party. The fear is that if Democrats are able to do it, then the next Republican majority will do the same. I don't think this consideration has merit. They are likely to do it anyway should they have the ability when the court doesn't have a right bias.
I think there are better ways to go about it. The whole structure is flawed as it concentrates a wealth of power to small amount of people. Something like using a lottery composed of the federal appellate court judges for each case. In theory, many cases could be tried simultaneously as there are about 180. Those bringing the cases would also not have insight as to the court's composition. They'd have to rely solely on the merit of their case.
I like this item. It's a bit dated, and the source leans left; but so does reality:
https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/here-are-4-ways-to-expand-the-us-supreme-court
I used "refused" in the past tense. I'm pretty sure that route is gone. Democrats will never have the majorities they need because this Court has made so many anti-democratic and pro-corruption rulings as to render the electoral process into a joke.
Gratuities are legal now! It is now legal to give a politician money as thanks for passing legislation. It's not "bribery" because it occurs after the act, you see, and so therefore it's just protected speech. I'm sure Clarence Thomas is happy about that one.
But! Dems could still run on the issue as a way to sway voters! But they're too scared because, as you said, then Republicans will just do it too and it'll probably lead to a civil war. So. Uh. Whatever I guess, country is fucked.
Wow the ONLY way? That doesn't sound right at all.
The Court is the key to the fascist's agenda and the way they keep scoring victories despite being a minority Party.
Either the fascist Court is dealt with politically or... what? Tell me something that wouldn't get us banned for talking about.