this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
112 points (98.3% liked)

News

36201 readers
2898 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

It's always weird to see when courts go so much against everyone (even the prosecutors?) so they can kill someone. The bloodlust...

[–] RidderSport@feddit.org 2 points 11 months ago

It's bloody expensive to grant an appeal - hence the hesitation, especially since SCOTUS is not actually ruling law anymore

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Every year about 8,000 people file their cases for cert at the Supreme Court. Each year they grant cert on about 80. Roughly 1/1000 odds. Those about 8,000 cases include cases that have also previously filed in past years without cert.

Amicus briefs are not uncommon. They often don't grant cert when there are no novel legal questions. The Supreme Court simply doesn't not have the ability to hear every appeal. Them not granting cert in any case should not be taken as a dispositive.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 11 months ago

Well good to know. I thought they had to choose to take up a case to reject it, but it makes sense that they would be and to reject it outright without having to hear it.