this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
843 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2607 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It’s horrendously incorrect. Listen to the dissenting justices, or constitutional scholars like Luttig and Tribe. Basically anyone who’s serious and not a craven Trump crony.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So, we're allowed to disagree with scotus judges without being basement dwellers? I agree, both with that and your conclusion that it was the wrong ruling.

It's just funny that I was mercilessly downvoted for pointing this out.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller

BTW, I never called you this. I was making an arbitrary comparison to any number of us having a conversation about the ruling and saying "not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller" compared to "a sitting SCOTUS jurist who dissented" in terms of "we better pay attention"

I think you were downvoted because your post implies you agree with the majority. You have clarified it by saying:

[you agree with] conclusion that it was the wrong ruling.

Probably should have started with that.

I responded more directly since your ire seems to be pointed at me.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Probably should have started with that.

I did. At least pretty clearly when I said they were crowning themselves king rather than the POTUS king. Apparently, tho, I have to say I disagree with the ruling in every post or posters will assume that any disagreement with someone who claims the ruling is wrong must mean I think the ruling is correct. I guess I should have known this already tho.

BTW, I never called you this.

"Did you read the fucking dissent? That’s a sitting SC Justice saying that quote, not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller:"

Funny to read you say my post, which doesn't even remotely imply that I think the ruling was correct, implies that. . .but when you respond to my point, saying it is wrong, and throwing in "not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller," that doesn't imply you think that about me.

I responded more directly since your ire seems to be pointed at me.

You're projecting here, as you were the one cursing at me and insulting people. I said nothing about you and I'm not really irked at all; I understand fully how partisan the average poster is and that any dissent is going to get piled on.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Apologies if it came off that way. Truly meant that as a generalization and pretty much include myself in the snark if it matters at this point...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Apology accepted. I also apologize for snarking back. Lol