• NegativeNull@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    ·
    3 months ago

    The Chevron case the SCOTUS just ruled on was in direct support of Project2025. They aren’t waiting for a new potential president.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      3 months ago

      They’ve wanted that forever. Once Goursich was chosen the legal world knew what was coming. A legal podcast I used to listen to called it once he was picked.

      You know it’s corrupt when you can call things like that :(

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          It was called opening arguments, but one of the hosts did the whole “get popular and become a sexual predator” thing so they’re gone now. :(

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s almost like his mother was involved in the original Chevron case.

        Funny thing was that it was a conservative victory at the time, because Reagan appointees were intentionally fucking shit up.

  • ceenote@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s nice to see Democrats properly demonizing a Republican agenda into a standalone buzzword, the way Republicans do with a new variations of “equality” every year (woke, DEI, etc.)

  • DogPeePoo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    4 months ago

    Soon we’ll all be subsidizing Matt Gaetz raping and trafficking underage girls, while he continues to take a taxpayer salary and the DOJ does nothing about it.

  • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 months ago

    I hope some group starts tracking every bill against p2025, so that any time they try to squeeze anything in it into a bill everyone knows and we can make it impossible to pass. We also need to know if any Dems ever allow any of it to pass… Basically it should become the anti-Bible for the left… If it’s in there, it’s never going to be allowed to happen

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    “Accused”?

    Look, say it or don’t. These aren’t criminal charges, you don’t need to allege anything. They’re public figures, they’re not going to sue. Why the chickenshititude?

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          The author is not accusing them of doing it, they are reporting that someone else is. The author is supporting those accusations by showing the evidence.

          Common Dreams is a pretty shitty source, but this is actually reasonable journalism. They should report just the facts.

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yes I know. They’re using “accused” correctly - and limiting the impact of the article. The headline I offered changes no facts, presuming they show them in the article, and doesn’t limit the impact by offloading the premise as an “accusation”.

            House GOP is funding Project2025 efforts. Is it doing so because Project2025 told them to? That’s irrelevant. If that’s the focus of the article, it shouldn’t be.

            Saying “accused” is weak - it limits the impact because they’re not directly tying the budgeting and Project2025 together and they’re not saying who’s “accusing” them. It’s clickbaity.

            My main complaint against commondreams is their adblocker-blocker. This type of headline writing is not unique to them.