SCOTUS be like: Nope!
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2025
649 points (98.9% liked)
Actually Infuriating
779 readers
1 users here now
Community Rules:
Be Civil
Please treat others with decency. No bigotry (disparaging comments about any race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, nationality, ability, age, etc). Personal attacks and bad-faith argumentation are not allowed.
Content should be actually infuriating
Politics and news are allowed, as well as everyday life. However, please consider posting in partner communities below if it is a better fit.
Mark NSFW/NSFL posts
Please mark anything distressing (death, gore, etc.) as NSFW and clearly label it in the title.
Keep it Legal and Moral
No promoting violence, DOXXing, brigading, harassment, misinformation, spam, etc.
Partner Communities
- Mildly Infuriating
- Furiously Infuriating
- Memes
- Political Memes
- Lemmy Shitpost
- Not The Onion
- You Should Know
- Lemmy Be Wholesome
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
I for one am looking forward to civil war 2. Im so tired of going to work.
Who's going to tell him?
im saving this to show my great great grandk- wait lol I'm not having children in this shithole
Zone: flooded. Fucks: none left to give.
They won't stop until there's a threat to their unilateral power.
Who's donating to enforce the Hatch act? Are they outbidding the Project 2025 folks?
That's all that matters anymore. Government for the highest bidder.
It's only a violation if there are consequences. The trump admin has learned there will be no consequences
Laws only matter if someone enforces them
arguably. there are exemptions in the hatch act for senate-confirmed appointees. the secretary of agriculture seems like it would be one such appointee with hatch act exemptions. they could potentially make a case that these messages are communications from the secretary of agriculture, not from any actual experts or public servants. if it is meant to be a communication from the secretary of agriculture, one could argue there is an exemption in the hatch act for this specific activity (even though the actual communication goes through other non-senate-approved government employees/appointeed, many if not most of whom do not have exemptions to the hatch act, but do you punish the gun or the entity that pulled the trigger? (yes both would be nice but let's play a different game instead)
this seems to be what i've picked up on reading
On the plus side, any time some Democratic ideologue tells you a living wage can't happen because of the parliamentarian, you'll now know definitively that their resistance to a living wage was never about law or rules and they had all the power they needed to make substantial change.