News

36480 readers

2845 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

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

462

US attorneys handpicked by Pam Bondi were appointed illegally, judge rules (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 day ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Federal judge said prosecutors picked to replace Alina Habba repeated error of bypassing congressional approval

Three prosecutors installed by Donald Trump’s administration to lead the New Jersey attorney general’s office after the president’s former personal lawyer was disqualified from the role in December were also illegally appointed, a federal judge has ruled.

Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, handpicked the three to replace Alina Habba, who resigned after a succession of district and appeals court rulings that she was serving illegally because she never received Senate confirmation.

On Monday, federal judge Matthew Brann said Bondi’s actions repeated the same error of bypassing congressional approval for the appointments. He stopped short of ordering their removal pending a government appeal – but, in a blistering 130-page ruling, said overreach by the executive branch could jeopardise all of its cases before him.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DandomRude@piefed.social 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

What makes you think that a Supreme Court that has ruled that the US president is effectively above the law would make any decision that is compatible with a democratic constitution - this decision is certainly not compatible with any democratic constitution in any country that I am aware of.

The rest of what I describe has little to do with the legal system, because ICE already exists in the form described.

Again, I should point out that I am from Europe and this is merely my opinion, but against the backdrop of recent events, I cannot see how anyone can still have any faith left in the US legal system. To me, it seems more like an accomplice that enables organized crime on this absurd scale in the first place, rather than a system that serves the good of the people.

[–] mracton@piefed.social 1 points 2 hours ago

As someone inside of this mess, my point is that there are too many legal proceedings in too broad of a range of issues for SCOTUS to be given the opportunity to overturn all of them, barring SCOTUS giving POTUS the explicit power to fully ignore the Constitution and nullifying all state and regional courts and their decisions. Is this impossible? No. However if that doesn’t happen, a rickety frame of rulings and laws supporting the Constitution are likely to still exist in the U.S. when he passes from the mortal coil. The judiciary (SCOTUS and some circuit courts notwithstanding) and the citizens are the only entities who have consistently and successfully stood up to the administration, even if most of those wins have been small.

We are completely agreed on ICE/DHS.