Yeah. They were wrong to allow this, the precedent is just not good. IDC what the issue is frankly, we don't need exectuve branches of government with too much power. Point and case, look at the naked orange baby.
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2025
7 points (100.0% liked)
Legal News
526 readers
28 users here now
International and local legal news.
Basic rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Sensitive topics need NSFW flag
Some cases involve sensitive topics. Use common sense and if you think that the content might trigger someone, post it under NSFW flag.
3. Instance rules apply
All lemmy.zip instance rules listed in the sidebar will be enforced.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah. The bonkers-ness of the way he did this is really undersold by the headline. He "vetoed" particular parts of the sentence and individual digits out of particular numbers to assemble a whole new law that was totally different than the law that anyone had intended to pass. It's nuts. I have no idea why they decided it was okay.
Yep. Exactly. This is blatantly fucked up. I don't care how noble or good the cause.
I agree but at the same time the US congress has been incapable of doing anything to the point where the only feasible way of change is through the US president. Point and case, look at the naked orange baby.
Incapable of doing anything? You mean incapable of holding him accountable? If the dismantling of democracy is doing something, then I'll take more of incapable of doing anything.
Yeah exactly, what good is a more powerful legislative if it spends its entire existence not doing anything