this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
141 points (99.3% liked)

News

36891 readers
2444 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


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. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Four of the nine justices - its three liberal members and its newest member - disagreed with the rest of the court about decision, saying the outcome powered by five conservative justices went further than necessary.

It ruled that barring state enforcement avoids a "patchwork" of candidates being declared ineligible in some states but not others. On that point all the justices agreed.

But liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, as well as conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in separate opinions faulted the other five justices for going further to specify that Section 3 can be enforced only through federal legislation. Given the profound partisan divisions in Congress, any such legislation is highly unlikely.

(George Mason University constitutional law professor) Ilya Somin said he was disappointed the justices did not delve into tricky questions that the Colorado Supreme Court tackled, including its conclusion that the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack was an insurrection and that Trump took part.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I’m just here to watch and comment on the necrotic freakshow without hope or agenda, merely for entertainment.

So are you not interested in prioritizing human happiness, or are you interested yet refuse to do so?

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I'm just a cynic who absolutely would, but understands that humans en masse are far more interested in getting mooaar than their fellow humans, and largely need humans to look down on to feel content, that what we want is incompatible with who and what we are, using all of human history, right into last century's most prominent genocide victims deciding genocide looks like fun and they'll have a go, as evidence.

I want humanity to get it's head out of its ass so that we can all maximize being a little happy instead of a relative view being gluttonously happy at the expense of most's misery, but I recognize that I might as well want humans to be able to flap their arms and magically start flying like birds, it's just as pointless and impossible, both are beyond our capacity.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

I’m just a cynic who absolutely would, but...

I want humanity to get it’s head out of its ass so that we can all maximize being a little happy instead of a relative [few] being gluttonously happy at the expense of most’s misery, but...

It couldn't hurt to try. You have the will to do so.