Judge Orders Biden Administration to Resume Permits for Gas Exports (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 1 week ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/11061194

Washington Post coverage for comparison (registration required)

Really a contrast with the incredible immunity and power the US courts are willing to give Republican Presidents.

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] dugmeup@lemmy.world 90 points 1 week ago

He should officially decline. Immunity bitch!

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 week ago

But like… unironically.

I am refusing to do so as an official act as president.

[-] cm0002@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

If only Dark Brandon would be allowed to send this to the court in reply

[-] RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com 17 points 1 week ago

1000016723

[-] Beaver@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

Those judges should quit or be impeached

[-] anindefinitearticle@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 week ago

Like junkies hooked on fossil fuels, heading for withdrawal.

We say “we just won’t increase our export capacity beyond the doubling already approved for construction.” Then our broken court system finds a way to do it anyway.

Not that gas-guzzling Biden would follow through on this, but couldn’t the president just destroy the permit applications and call it an “official act”?

this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024

71 points (97.3% liked)

politics

18129 readers

3632 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News