this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
123 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3251 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
[–] ptz@dubvee.org 43 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 23 points 4 months ago (3 children)

None of that means much of anything if the Supreme Court feels like saying otherwise.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

All them Originalists on the SCROTUS gonna be like "WUT? that's not what they meant.....Now. hold this funnel for my beer..."

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Thomas is the primary originalist here, let's not paint them all with the same brush. If Congress would impeach him, we might have a decent(ish) Court. See my list of "liberal" opinions they're rendered (above).

[–] Yearly1845@reddthat.com 1 points 4 months ago

"Well akshually 1A specifically says Congress, but this is a state level law, so we'll allow it".

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

SCOTUS can hardly be relied on to make conservative calls. Been collecting these for a couple of months.

  • Supreme Court rejects bid to restrict access to abortion pill
  • Supreme Court sides with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, spurning a conservative attack : news
  • Supreme Court upholds law barring domestic abusers from owning guns in major Second Amendment ruling | CNN Politics
  • Justices uphold Trump tax on overseas investments in win for Biden | CNN Politics
  • US must pay more of Native American tribes' healthcare costs, Supreme Court rules | Reuters
  • Texas councilwoman can sue over arrest she claims was politically motivated, Supreme Court rules | CNN Politics
  • Supreme Court declines to step into the fight over bathrooms for transgender students | AP News
  • Supreme Court orders Louisiana to use congressional map with additional Black district | AP News
  • Supreme Court makes it easier to sue for job discrimination over forced transfers : news
  • Supreme Court won’t hear InfoWars host’s First Amendment challenge to Jan. 6 conviction - POLITICO
  • Peter Navarro’s get-out-of-jail request is again rejected by the Supreme Court | CNN Politics
  • Supreme Court temporarily blocks new Texas immigration law
  • Supreme Court unanimously rules against government in No Fly List case : news
  • Supreme Court rejects appeal by former New Mexico county commissioner banned for Jan. 6 insurrection | AP News
  • Samuel Alito Is Mad You Can’t Be Bigoted Toward Gay People Anymore | The New Republic
  • Supreme Court turns down rent control challenge - Los Angeles Times
  • US Supreme Court won’t hear case challenging Washington capital gains tax - OPB
  • Supreme Court rejects appeal from Trump-allied lawyers over 2020 election lawsuit in Michigan | The Seattle Times
  • Supreme Court allows agents to cut razor wire on Texas-Mexico Border | AP News
  • Supreme Court rejects Alabama defiance in redistricting case : NPR
[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Scotus has always been conservative. Get out of here with this bullshit. You think a few liberal rulings sprinkled over the cake of conservatism means anything? History has already proven otherwise.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

It’s the duty of SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution into law. They already ruled against exactly this in 1980.

Stone v. Graham, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on November 17, 1980, ruled (5–4) that a Kentucky statute requiring school officials to post a copy of the Ten Commandments (purchased with private contributions) on a wall in every public classroom violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which is commonly interpreted as a separation of church and state.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Stone-v-Graham

Let’s just hope our newly conservative SCOTUS doesn’t have a different opinion.

[–] alilbee@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

All they have to do is redefine "establishment". That's child's play for this court.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Or reverse the incorporation principle and say that Congress applies solely to the federal government.

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 months ago

Or cite precedent from the Spanish inquisition.