There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

MediaBiasFactChecker Bot ,

Common Dreams Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)> Name: commondreams.org> Bias: Left
> Factual Reporting: High
> Country: United States of America
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/common-dreams/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News

Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.

FooterBeep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.

pelletbucket ,

okay so we’re not talking about Amy Schumer

EleventhHour ,
@EleventhHour@lemmy.world avatar

Nobody has been talking about her for a long time

pelletbucket ,

you guys get upset about the weirdest things

blackbelt352 ,

Hur dur woman not funny amirite guiz??

Fuck off, it’s not 2016 any more.

pelletbucket ,

okay, genuine question, is that what people think my comment is saying?

Irremarkable ,
@Irremarkable@fedia.io avatar

Yes

pelletbucket ,

how??

lobut ,

I interpreted your comment as the article not specifying which Schumer and you picked out a famous Schumer not associated with politics as a little bit of fun.

I could be wrong … I think many people have been dog-piling her comedy for a while and I think others thought you were dog whistling.

I mean, this is just coming from someone on the outside of this.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

“Bad joke.”

pelletbucket ,

oh that clarifies everything thanks

Irremarkable ,
@Irremarkable@fedia.io avatar

It's more that it's entirely irrelevant and adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

It might have landed if she had been at all relevant in any even somewhat recent time.

pelletbucket ,

I wasn’t trying to be funny. I’m pretty stoned and I had to stare at the headline for quite a while before I could remember Chuck Schumer’s name

cybervseas ,

If you’re still high, get this: Chuck Schumer and Amy Schumer are related!

pelletbucket ,

holy shit

pelletbucket ,

would you look at that https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/4fd9e8fa-186e-497e-968b-31bf945d5f79.jpeg

Lemminary ,

Or if Schumer somehow plagiarized the Act and ran with it. Like cousin, like cousin.

Assman ,
@Assman@sh.itjust.works avatar

I just watched trolls: band together, which stars amy schumer. Checkmate, people who didn’t just watch that.

acosmichippo ,
@acosmichippo@lemmy.world avatar

“nah we like kings”

-“Republicans”

ChicoSuave ,

Benedict Arnold was a Republican.

fine_sandy_bottom ,

I think that’s exactly the point though right?

Blocking this legislation will be an emphatic statement to that effect.

modifier ,

Which their base will eat up. Shit is weird right now.

NOT_RICK ,
@NOT_RICK@lemmy.world avatar

Fuck their base. Take the middle of the electorate by shining a light on the weird old tyrant and you win the white house

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@quokk.au avatar

As a republican from Australia, they’re a disgrace to the cause.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

“By the way, what’s a republic?”

Lojcs ,

President Joe Biden, a Democrat

In case we didn’t know

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

By all means let people know which side is the anti-king side as much as possible.

MyOpinion ,

It is nuts that this act even has to be put forward. These conservative frauds claim to look at the original intent of the constitution. Making the president above the law is literally the exact opposite to what we fought and died for with England. These justices are traitors.

grue ,

The founders of conservative ideology were literally monarchists

huginn ,

[…] Schumer has written into the bill “jurisdiction stripping” measures that would remove the Supreme Court’s authority to render the legislation unconstitutional, and allow only lower courts in the District of Columbia to handle a legal challenge. Such jurisdiction stripping has been seldom used in the past and would likely be highly controversial.

TIL Jurisdiction Stripping - Wild I thought that Sup Court always had that check on Congress.

nickhammes ,

IANAL, but to my understanding, SCOTUS is defined by the constitution and given certain powers and protections, to interpret the constitution, mediate disputes between the political branches, and certain duties given to its chief Justice. Congress is given broad powers to set the laws, which includes details of how branches are run, like creating departments in the Executive, and setting the number of Justices on SCOTUS.

If I understand Jurisdiction Stripping correctly, it’s not preventing SCOTUS from eventually reviewing the case, but a law that says they don’t get the first review of legal challenges. It could slow the process, at the very least.

ThePowerOfGeek ,
@ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world avatar

Didn’t they largely establish that power themselves through Marbury vs Madison in 1803?

That elevation / clarity of their authority wasn’t a massive problem until the last 10 or so years when they started going off the deep-end.

nickhammes ,

Yeah Marbury v Madison found that congress can decide which cases SCOTUS reviews directly, vs where the authority of lower courts starts. But it’s not in conflict with the other principle from Marbury v Madison, that SCOTUS has the power to review whether laws are constitutional or not. If I understand correctly, at least.

Before Trump, the worst issue the growing authority of the court caused was a shift from Congress making major policy changes, to SCOTUS. Congress changing that could be a change for the better in the long run.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •