News
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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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.
view the rest of the comments
Roe v. Wade fell during Biden's presidency and the most he did was an executive order for women's health research
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/03/18/fact-sheet-president-biden-issues-executive-order-and-announces-new-actions-to-advance-womens-health-research-and-innovation/
how are you going to advance something that is now not here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
The Catholic Church condemned the ruling by the Supreme Court.[141] Blackmun wrote in his diary, "Abortion flak—3 Cardinals—Vatican—Rochester wires!"[141]
John Cardinal Krol, the archbishop of Philadelphia who was also the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Terence Cardinal Cooke, the archbishop of New York, both issued statements condemning the ruling.[175] Krol called the ruling "an unspeakable tragedy for this nation" that "sets in motion developments which are terrifying to contemplate."[175] Cooke called the decision a "horrifying action" and added:[175]
How many millions of children prior to their birth will never live to see the light of today because of the shocking action of the majority of the United States Supreme Court today?[175]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#
how do the Republicans differ on abortion again?
Roe V Wade was overturned by Supreme Court packed by GOP and Donald Trump. Fuck off with your bullshit.
Don't apologize for Biden. He could have tried to pack the court, he could be given weekly speeches denouncing their decision, he has the IRS and FBI could have made Thomas' and Alito's life a living hell with daily announcements of fresh bribery charges, he could pick a fight with the Catholic Church pointing out that it is a foreign power influencing the US government. Instead he went gently into that good night.
Now will I vote for him? Yes because the alternative is worse. Can I support him? Not for a second.
Wikipedia is now bullshit?
Trumpism was bad but so is Bidenism
Biden is clearly on record saying he agrees with the abortion ban
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortion
Which is... Where exactly?
Your shitty edit does not say that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#
Biden is a moderate Democrat[549] who says his positions are deeply influenced by Catholic social teaching.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortion
right there him agreeing with the abortion ban plain as day
Yes, he is catholic. Yes, most Catholics disagree with abortion. No, Biden doesn’t think his religious beliefs should dictate how women live their lives. He literally says it plain as day for even the very stupid among us to understand. Good luck!
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-biden-2024-reproductive-rights-harris-494af752992ba88fa6e3d53fbd54f716
This seems extremely deceptive, possibly deliberately so. Being influenced by catholic teachings does not mean you agree with everything they believe. Even someone who rejects every single moral teaching of the church could still be influenced by them in some ways.
In this case, we don’t need to speculate from some vague statement about the church because Biden has explicitly stated he supported roe v wade, has appointed judges that have pursued this pro-choice ideology, and has even stated that he would sign a bill to reinstate the previous protections for women. Such a bill was put forth in congress but was blocked in the senate. He does not have any direct control over this issue, so it’s hard for me to see what else he even could have done.
It comes off as very intellectually dishonest to ignore all that and claim he’s “clearly on the record saying he supports the abortion ban” then point to something he didn’t even say and is only tangentially related.
PS: There are tons of legitimate criticisms of Biden so it’s especially strange to invent ones that are so far from the truth.
Biden being for women's rights would have been a drastic out of common place executive order restoring women's rights instead of one advancing research into a field that requires Roe versus Wade
Executive orders can only interpret and change the execution of federal law. They can’t invent new ones. If there were a federal abortion ban in place, Biden could decline to enforce it, though this would not change the actual law and would likely be challenged in court.
The abortion bans are all by state governments which Biden has no authority over. Read up on federalism and the way the US government works. It sounds like some of your frustration stems from a lack of political knowledge. The presidency is not a dictatorship and we do not want it to be. If Biden could restore reproductive rights unilaterally then a republican could also remove them unilaterally, which would be even worse than the current situation.
Please tell me precisely how many justices Biden has appointed vs. the number of justices on the court.
he could have started nominating to expand the court
The president is not a dictator. It doesn't work like that.
Also, do you really think presidents should just be able to change the size of SCOTUS whenever they want to? What if Trump gets in and decides to shrink it to only the conservatives?
he can nominate 100 people today and make the Senate turn down every one
Which they would. So what would that accomplish?
you don't know that
I know enough about our legislature to know that they would not approve 100 SCOTUS justices. I'm not sure why you think they would allow any president to do that unless they were a rubber stamp legislature, which they are not.
they don't need to approve 100 but letting 6 or 7 through is possible
Why would the Senate even let one extra justice through?
You would need 51% of them to do that. Which would necessarily either include Manchin and Sinema or two Republicans. If you honestly believe either of those scenarios would result in even increasing the size of SCOTUS to 10 justices, you really don't understand the U.S. government.
of 100 candidates having to go through all the consent hearings, I think they would come to an agreement about a few
Why would they come to an agreement on any of them? What would compel Sinema and Manchin to agree to expand the court by a single justice? And if not them, name the two Republicans who would please.
imagine the immense opportunity. I don't know how they wouldn't all think about the power being given to them. the pool of candidates. the legacy. but Biden won't even nominate 2 more because he doesn't actually care.
In other words, you can't give a reason for Sinema and Manchin to support Biden if he did this or name two Republicans.
Because as far as I can tell, the 'immense opportunity' would also be there to say no to every single judge and not allow Biden to increase the size of the Supreme Court. Which they would totally do since even plenty of Democrats would be against it.
Why you think this is a politically winning issue I don't know. If it were, it would have been done already by other presidents. Do you think Clinton would have had a court with Thomas, Scalia and all the other Republican appointees? Do you think Clinton would have dealt with Rehnquist as chief justice if he didn't have to?
Even FDR had the Supreme Court working against him. Why didn't he expand the court so all of his New Deal programs would pass? Do you think maybe it's because it is not something the Senate would ever agree to or do you think FDR was just less popular than Biden?
fdr at least tried.
When did he try to expand the court? Details please.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937
Okay. Fair enough. He tried.
And he failed.
So what would the point of Biden trying be exactly? Because it sounds purely performative and the Senate already wastes way too much time on performative bullshit.
he could introduce a constitutional amendment. he could pack the court. he could do something.
A constitutional amendment takes a supermajority of congress and 2/3rds of the states to ratify it. That is literally impossible for Biden to achieve.
We already talked about how he would fail at packing the courts.
I think you don't really have a good understanding of how the U.S. government works.
he didn't even fail at it. he didn't fucking try.
You're right. He didn't try to do something purely performative that was almost certain to fail in a big waste of time and taxpayer money.
Because that would have been pretty fucking stupid.
I was just spit balling. he could literally do anything to fix the situations we are facing instead of not.
He could literally do nothing about the Dobbs decision. It was entirely out of his hands. The executive branch does not control the judicial branch. That's the whole point of the separation of powers.
he could have introduced a constitutional amendment. he could have packed the court. he did nothing.
Wikipedia is now a prime example of misinformation and propaganda?
of course he would skip over saying that
he said he is deeply devoted to Catholicism on record right there on his and the Catholic's Wikipedia page
how else could one look at those facts?
These aren't facts. You're laundering a broken dog whistle through a couple Wikipedia links. Crawl back into your cave you troglodyte.