Sidechat logo
Download TikTok Instagram X
Sidechat icon
Join communities on Sidechat Download
US Politics icon
user profile icon
US Politics 20h

sundew

 under the new interpretation, unless it can be proved that <evil act here> specifically targeted <endangered species>, they wouldn’t be charged. so if it turns out this is known to be the only habitat of a species but the goal was simply more lumber…
US Politics icon
US Politics 22h
Trump trying to remove the endangered species act has me in actual tears.. WHY ARE WE OKAY WITH DESTROYING OUR EARTH! If this man is okay with hurting ENDANGERED ANIMALS.. what do u think he’ll do to you!
comment

3
upvote 11 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 20h

Yeah, so that’s pretty awful Before they would be good if they could show that they did their environmental reviews properly Now they can’t get convicted for that… unless it’s proven that they did environmental reviews and deliberately ignored them

upvote 6 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 19h

If this is their logic we should just do away with charging for involuntary manslaughter then😭😭like wtf

upvote 5 downvote
user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #2 17h

that would mean pretty blatantly stating that they value economic/financial gains over human life, which… they haven’t exactly applied to white working americans yet

upvote 1 downvote