1162
submitted 4 months ago by ooli@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 125 points 4 months ago

Was a pretty good ~10 min speech too, on the House floor.

https://youtu.be/3KZy3NSqnkg

[-] Bronzie@sh.itjust.works 44 points 4 months ago

Is there any chance this will ever pass?

I don’t really know what it would take to get this done

[-] Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works 88 points 4 months ago

0%

Would require the GOP to no longer exist to get this done.

[-] David_Eight@lemmy.world 50 points 4 months ago

She could also try to convince Biden to have them assassinated, which would be totally legal.

[-] refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org 25 points 4 months ago

With the current SCOTUS, it's only an official act if a Republican does it.

[-] DaleGribble88@programming.dev 29 points 4 months ago

I'm not advocating for it, but like, if they are dead they can't really speak up about their opinions. Again, not condoning murder, but just thinking through the logic on this.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Neato@ttrpg.network 51 points 4 months ago

We'd need every Democrat and a few Republicans. Since these traitorous justices are what's giving Republicans power, it's pretty unlikely. Still worth trying.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 30 points 4 months ago

Yeah, you push the issue and get people on record voting to defend blatant corruption. Then you can use it against them in the next election. House Reps run for office every two years. It's really frustrating to watch the Democrats abandon a cause because "it will never pass the House."

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 31 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

There's always a chance, it's just very small. These corrupt justices are the end game for the republican party, the odds of any of them breaking ranks to convict is very low.

That said, it's almost certainly not about conviction, so much as upholding the rule of law and creating political pressure and support for something like packing the court.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The motion will get assigned to a committee, run by Republicans, where it will die. Even if there is a sympathetic Republican on that committee, all House members are up for re-election in November, and voting for this is a sure way to get the MAGAs all up in their grill and would likely lead to that person losing a ton of MAGA support, and likely losing their job.

AOC knows this and is doing this to help Democrats in vulnerable districts, to help turn the House in the next Congress. "Elect us into the majority, and we will actually look into this."

[-] dumbluck@midwest.social 11 points 4 months ago

You are arguing that Republicans are, ”To busy keeping their job to do their job”. While that may be true in some cases, I fear that for some of them, breaking the Supreme Court like this was the goal all along.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Would need at least some republican support, since they still hold the majority. So, not holding my breath, they tend to stick together.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee 104 points 4 months ago

Don't follow much US politics because yous cunts shoehorn it into every fuckin thread about squirrels, dog food or whatever, but why is that lassie not your president? Instead of the two pish-reeking geriatric cunts you've got at the moment

[-] Kalothar@lemmy.ca 53 points 4 months ago

She will not be the minimum age of 35 until next year and this is ineligible to run for the position till 2028

Also, we have a racism and sexism issue in this country so it would be an uphill battle.

[-] HaveYouPaidYourDues@lemmy.world 53 points 4 months ago

She's 35 in October, she is eligible

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] VieuxQueb@lemmy.ca 52 points 4 months ago

Soooo, there is a minimum age but not a maximum ?

Yet cognitive decline starts way earlier than people are willing to admit !

[-] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago

I'm not even 40 yet, but my brain just glasses over reality and sees whatever it is used to seeing.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 39 points 4 months ago

why is that lassie not your president?

She needs to be about a century older, white, male, sell out to corporations, and shed her sense of ethics.

Then maybe, if the GOP is running enough of a Nazi.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ooli@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago

I find somehow telling that US got a black president before it get (if it even go there) a woman president

[-] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

It's pretty consistent. Black men got the right to vote long before women too. The US has more deep rooted misogyny than racism, and it's got plenty of racism.

[-] nomous@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

Blew my mind when I found out women couldn't have their own bank accounts in the United states until 1974.

[-] ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 4 months ago

Technically, she wasn't old enough to run until this year.

More practically, we have a center-right party and a fascist party in this country. The center-right party has a few actual leftists in it, but they tend not to gain much power.

[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 4 months ago

lassie not your president

lassie for president and larry the cat for prime minister 2024

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 11 points 4 months ago

A large chunk of the US is deeply sexist on top of other intellectual and moral failings.

This is aggravated by the right wing fighting against education, especially when it benefits the general public.

[-] Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 4 months ago

Because as president you serve 4-8 years and then become generally irrelevant. In congress you can serve for decades.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 93 points 4 months ago

I'm willing to bet that even if the two judges were removed tomorrow, the Democrats wouldn't add any judges because they'd want to "play fair" and not assign someone right before an election.

[-] eksb@programming.dev 85 points 4 months ago

It was Mitch McConnell and the Republics that blocked Merrick Garland, not the Democrats.

[-] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That is true, but you also have to remember the Democrats BARELY put up a fight against their nonsense because they were SO certain they were going to win in 2016.

This "Put all our eggs in one basket, the people are too smart to fall for this" crap ALWAYS undoes the Democrats. Every single time.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 21 points 4 months ago

They've been playing that game since Reagan, so yeah.

[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 months ago

You also want that juicy carrot at the end of that stick during an election year. Ensure your voters are going to vote for you or else risking losing your whole democracy.

[-] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

Counter point - you get them installed so they can make meaningful decisions that help the people and then constantly remind the public:

We did that! We did that! We did that! Vote for us and there will be more of that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 10 points 4 months ago

They would. But Democrats don't have a majority in the Senate, so confirmation won't happen. Manchin and Sinema are the necessary independents likely to refuse to confirm.

[-] badbytes@lemmy.world 63 points 4 months ago

A politician, for the people? Strange.

[-] dudinax@programming.dev 10 points 4 months ago

There's a handful.

[-] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 63 points 4 months ago

And here’s the big fucking shocker. Guess who seated these two into their positions?

George Fucking Bush.

Republicans will still blame dems tho. Thanks to their lack of an educational system or ability to think critically or objectively for anyone that has anything to do with their party lines. Keep defunding that education and pushing the norm away from progress, tolerance, and respect for thy neighbor.

Sycophants.

[-] theImpudentOne@discuss.tchncs.de 23 points 4 months ago

Not the same Bush mind you…

[-] nomous@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)
[-] theImpudentOne@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 4 months ago

Trying to help. In the headline Thomas and Alito are mentioned. Thomas is from HW era and Alito was selected by W after Sandy gave W the election so she could retire under a republican. Two different Bushes. Cheers

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] anindefinitearticle@sh.itjust.works 44 points 4 months ago

Love to see it. AOC doing great work. To drive turnout, the November election should be about this issue: electoral and judicial reform. We can’t fix this country without it.

[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 42 points 4 months ago

listen to her speech compared to, say, marjorie green, and how she approaches things passionately and logically with facts to back it up is night and day.

it's also a reminder of how marjorie greene is everything to the republicans that they tried to claim aoc would be to the democrats. instead, aoc has become one of the most passionate, analytical, and policy wonk driven politicians in congress.

[-] ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone 49 points 4 months ago

I always thought it was hilarious how they'd complain that Democrats (especially coastal Democrats) are all "ivory tower elites", and then mock her for working as a bartender and imply that made her unfit for office.

Like, make up your mind, assholes.

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 15 points 4 months ago

They don't use words to try to find or describe truth. They use words for effect. If saying (or believing) A gets what they want today, and Not-A gets it tomorrow, they will happily switch without any hesitation. Sometimes without any awareness.

We all are at risk of doing this. But the Republicans have it turned up to 11.

And because of that, on some fundamental level, they are bad people.

[-] aStonedSanta@lemm.ee 14 points 4 months ago

Cognitive dissonance. The goal never was to be understood. Just to create chaos.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone 37 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

She needs to force everyone involved to read the Pro Publica piece and call it an executive summary lol

Hell she should just get the people who worked on that piece to advise

[-] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 37 points 4 months ago

Nothing like a good bit of public shaming for these corrupt judges.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] redditrefugee24@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

it will not go anywhere but good for her for doing it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ooli@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

I wonder how you can spend 500 000$ on an Indonesian trip.. are those Indonesian dollars, or are they having coke and hooker every minutes?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
1162 points (98.7% liked)

News

23406 readers
2173 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