this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
170 points (98.3% liked)

politics

18797 readers
2791 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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! 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected appeals from three Republican U.S. House members who challenged fines for not wearing face coverings on the House floor in 2021.

The justices did not comment on leaving in place $500 fines issued in May 2021 to U.S. Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Ralph Norman of South Carolina.

The mask requirement was part of the House's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the mandate remained in place even after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidance noting that “fully vaccinated people can resume activities without wearing a mask or physically distancing.”

The lawmakers showed up on the House floor without masks, even posing for a selfie. The requirement was lifted in June 2021.

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I wonder how many taxpayer funds they wasted in the quest to eliminate $1500 of fines.

[–] los_chill@programming.dev 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

O/U 100k? I take the over.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Over. Definitely.

[–] Nastybutler@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Rather than pay the fine and move on, they spent a bunch of money on lawyers, because of "principle" and now they still have to pay the fine. Jackasses

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

They'll find a way to use taxpayer money for it.

[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Well, they didn’t spend a bunch of money. Their donors did.

[–] solarvector@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 6 months ago

On the one hand, those are some jackasses that should be fined. On the other hand the jackass caucus is going to be forever trying to use similar measures as a tool to interfere with the democratic process.

[–] solidgrue@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Even the Supreme Court won't touch House rules. That's Article I. Bet dat.

This was a quixotic campaign gambit, at best.

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Fingers crossed for a few Darwin Awards.