this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
114 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19080 readers
3194 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
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 55 points 4 months ago

If you refuse to vote for Democrats because they don’t perfectly align with your progressive ideals, this is what you get - potentially decades of work implementing environmental, anticorruption, and social justice rolled back by a court that has been stacked with extreme right wingers to legislate from the bench for unpopular outcomes.

There is one viable party that both implements more progressive policies and names judges that will uphold them - do not throw your vote away.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago

Terrible. So I will not vote in protest! (/s)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

These are companies not people (even though we treat them that way when convenient), and they broke a regulation that is part of their expected operating procedures. Why are we dragging this into court and seating a jury because a company didn't do the thing they were supposed to do. They should have no presumption of innocence, the inspection is the proof one way or the other. This just lets them further delay any consequences, and will be another thing calculated into their cost analysis of "are we going to follow the rules" or is it more cost effective (at least short term because that's what shareholders care about) to just NOT ever follow the rules, delay any fines, rinse and repeat?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Because the companies paid good money to get these people appointed to the court, and they expect a return on that investment

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The justices ruled in a 6-3 vote that people accused of fraud by the SEC, which regulates securities markets, have the right to a jury trial in federal court.

The SEC was awarded more than $5 billion in civil penalties in the 2023 government spending year that ended Sept. 30, the agency said in a news release.

The case is among several this term in which conservative and business interests are urging the nine-member court to constrict federal regulators.

The court’s six conservatives already have reined them in, including in a decision last year that sharply limited environmental regulators’ ability to police water pollution in wetlands.

Circuit Court of Appeals threw out stiff financial penalties against Jarkesy and his Patriot28 investment adviser.

Those issues got virtually no attention during arguments in November, and the court chose to resolve the case only on the right to a jury trial.


The original article contains 444 words, the summary contains 148 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!