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.
Can someone explain this for me? I'm tired and the article is both missing context and full of double negative legal filings and rulings. I'm not sure what actually happened and who is on the side of ending qualified immunity.
Unless I read it wrong, Ohioans are planning to propose a state constitution amendment to end police qualified immunity. This rolling says, yeah you can do that. It still needs to get on the ballot and be voted on before anything changes.
Who is on the side of ending qualified immunity: pretty much anyone who isn't a cop or authoritarian. QI is basically legal armor for cops to do anything they want as long as it can be read as (waves hands) "following protocol".
Who is on the side of ending qualified immunity: pretty much anyone who isn't a cop or authoritarian.
As much as the votes on reproductive rights and cannabis gave me hope, the legislature’s responses on both left me cold, as some of these scumbags are not above ignoring the will of the electorate, and with the way the winds are blowing now, I’d not put it past them to move forward now to do just that.
I think there’s potential of the issue passing—as with the aforementioned reproductive rights and cannabis measures—but I fully expect a ballot issue on abolishing QI to meet a whole bunch of rigging and disenfranchisement fuckery, plus I fear that people may be intimidated or otherwise discouraged from voting altogether.
I'm sorry, I didn't read the whole article first before posting it.
I've found a better article that explains what happened and will update the link.
YES! Hold the thugs accountable
Wtf does "as path paves forward" mean?
It means the same as "The decision clears the way" at the start of the 2nd paragraph.
This process was blocked multiple times by the state attorney general. The lawsuit outcome says he was wrong and that the proposed amendment can now continue in the legislative process (possibly in parts, with each part requiring voter signatures).
Are you asking grammatically or procedurally?
Others have answered the former. As for the latter, supporters will now collect signatures from Ohio voters. If they collect enough (IIRC, 5% of the number of people that voted in the last governor's election), then it will be on the general ballot in an upcoming statewide election. If it passes, it will be adopted into law.
I haven't looked at this one specifically, but they are usually an amendment to the state constitution. That makes it harder for legislators or judges to override the will of the people.
I guess it's just embellishing the expression "paving a path forward", meaning in a more literal way that it would be easier to follow it, and more abstractly, that progress is now expected to be swifter than before.
Oh. Yeah that makes sense. I forgot about that saying. Reads awkwardly though when they re-arrange it like that...
Means this could go to the SCOTUS and we could get a 7-2 (Alito and Thomas of course) to get this overturned.
Wishful thinking
Nope, it’s a state issue. This can’t go to the US Supreme Court because it’s not federal.
Damn
If you’re in favor of ending qualified immunity though, then it’s a good thing. This means the state AG has lost and they can get it on the ballot to allow Ohioans to vote on the issue directly.
Yeah absolutely.
It means there is a clear way to move forward.
Yeah grammatically it's incorrect. Paths are paved, they themselves do not pave.
I know a bunch of people in Ohio, is there a link to share the ballot initiative with them yet? I'm sure they'd love to sign