this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024
71 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13934 readers
712 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

archive.today • What to Know About Biden's New Clean Cars Regulation - The New York Times

The quote is the very last paragraph. The media is so annoying. I often don't read articles from start to finish anymore. I scan them to find the bit that finally gets to the fucking point.

The other links are at the top of the homepage - https://www.nytimes.com/

all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SorosFootSoldier@hexbear.net 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Infamousblt@hexbear.net 15 points 1 year ago

But the court is apolitical so surely they'll side with the science this time garf-troll

[–] btfod@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago

What to Know About Biden's Jingling Keys

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 12 points 1 year ago

Building out public transportation to organically reduce demand for personal vehicles, even electric ones, which are still less GHG efficient than trains or buses geordi-no
Passing laws calling electric cars "a pretty nifty doodad that'd be a smart fetch for a right-thinking man about town" geordi-yes

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 11 points 1 year ago

I love that my fate, and the fates of my loved ones, is determined by 9 unelected geezers in star wars clothing.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No that's the trick.

It's going to be 5-4 in favor of climate change with one of the fascists joining the dissent to make it appear less partisan.

[–] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I disagree. In the Texas immigration law ruling the GOP majority did not even bother to explain its reasoning. I think they will now routinely, proudly, openly give a middle finger to the nation.

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago

The one recent exception that proved the rule was on the case determining if Trump can be barred from state ballots under the 14th amendment. The ruling that only the federal government can make that call, not the states, was bipartisan. However, the liberal justices plus Barrett dissented on the majority ruling that it was explicitly up to Congress to decide that.

The majority was clearly punting it to protect Trump as there’s no way it could pass in the current government. And the liberals didn’t like the “legislating from the bench” aspect. But I think Barrett realized, this was shooting themselves in the foot to remove that power from the court if it would be useful for their authoritarian, right wing ruling council project of the Supreme Court down the line.