It is scary that the last line of defense against authoritarianism is the judicial system.
News
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.
Yep, because the Tribunal of Six is the final (legal) court of appeal in the country.
The checks are fraudulent and the balances have been tampered with.
No the last line is the citizens but they seem content to sit back and watch their democracy collapse.
People aren't just sitting back though. The world literally just watched someone intentionally kill Charlie Kirk in a public setting, in front of thousands of people.
He wasn't defending democracy. He shot him because he wasn't fascist enough
That's speculation at best. The kid they apprehended hasn't confessed to anything.
Dont listen to the pundits. For anything. As someone recently suggested, pundits are just the court jesters keeping us divided.
I’ll take the win, regardless
literally just watched
What other way to watch is there?
Telepathically?
If it comes to the citizens, we're all gonna have a bad time.
There are some people doing some stuff. But definitely not at the scale nor intensity required.
"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order"
Easy to say behind a keyboard. If you live in the US and know your communities, it's not as easy as you all make it seem.
Oh, it's hard? Sorry, I didn't realize defending your democracy would be inconvenient for you. Oh well, nothing you can do then.
There's another line after that, but people don't like talking about it.
More scary that it's down to lawyers. Not the judges.
I get what you are saying and totally empathize with the sentiment given a modern context, but that is the purpose of judiciaries and why the US federal goverment structure was designed the way it was.
What's surprising is not that it's the last line of defense, it's that we've been pushed to the fucking brink.
USA fell off the brink last November. Everything going on now is the falling down bit while people hope someone else is stacking pillows at the bottom. But pillows got real expensive lately and a new Trump headline just dropped.
It's always been the judicial system. In Nazi Germany, the courts were incredibly close to blocking the concentration camps. If they had, we'd have had a very different history
Good thing conservatives haven't packed the courts. Oh wait.
Total concentration camp casualties were about 13 million. (about half of that jews, but we almost don't talk about the rest, Israel makes sure the focus is on jews). Mind bogglingingly horrible.
But total WWII casualties were something like 80 million.
Would history be different? Sure. Amongst other things, Zionists wouldn't be able to weaponize guilt.
"As every lawyer knows (or is presumed to know), a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective -- not a protected platform to rage against an adversary."
You have to be a really shit lawyer to work for Trump.
It would be great if the lawyers actually faced consequences for such blatant abuses of their profession. Lawyers are supposed to have standards they adhere to which are obviously not being followed. These lawyers know what they are doing is wrong and are doing it intentionally, their Bar association really should not tolerate this behavior.
They can, and many of Trump's lawyers have. It's a process though.
They should be figuring out ways to expedite that process because any semblance of respect for our legal system is vaporizing by the hour.
Sure the average person always had mistrust of it, but when you have the important people in the industry say it, you know it's fucked because part of their job is to try to retain respect for the institution.
They should be figuring out ways to expedite that process because any semblance of respect for our legal system is vaporizing by the hour.
That cuts both ways - you want a process that is diligent and non-reactionary. Trump will always find more stupid lawyers willing to fall on their sword for him anyway.
Yeah but the bar will drop low. He will have lawyers so stupid they are completely ineffectual.
I loved that quote! 😄
And this was a court they cherrypicked for presumed favorability.
I love that we still get some moments like this.
The judge gave them a page limit, too.
It's almost like it was frivolous.
He has admitted doing it because it drains their resources.
We need slap laws everywhere.
Some people reading your comment might take it as an exaggeration, but it was LITERALLY as frivolous as it could be. The judge who dismissed it said it contained repetitive praise for the president without establishing properly their reasons for legal action.
Headline tomorrow: "Trump appeals decision against New York Times, suit remains."
Well that was fast
Stormy Daniels: "I've seen faster."
Always good to see the Orange Nazi lose.
Not a loss. The judge just kicked it back as it was a load of whining and shit. If he can make a real grown-up suit out of it, it'll be back on.
The paint of the suit was the damage caused by it. Not winning.
Hey if we never do anything about it they know they can keep doing it.
Well the judge threw it out at lightspeed, that's something
😆