this post was submitted on 17 May 2025
327 points (98.8% liked)

politics

23538 readers
2219 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 3 points 1 hour ago

Bet he's going to expand the court and nominate 5 new judges.

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 13 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Wait... pro-Trump SCOTUS voted aggainst POTUS? Weird... weird...

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Let’s see how quickly they fold.

[–] kevin2107@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

That'll be lunch on monday

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 3 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Can someone ELI5 ? I thought Trump had the supreme court in his pocket, having appointed a majority of its members?

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Trump appointed three out of nine justices. Three more were appointed by Republicans (Bush 1 and Bush 2), so a 2/3 majority of justices are considered conservative.

Judicial conservatism, however does not always align with political conservatism. Judicial conservatism tends to mean staying close to the original meaning of the text of the law. Some of Trump's actions require creative interpretations of the law; in the case at hand, Trump wants to use a law meant to expel citizens of an enemy country during a war to deport immigrants he accuses of being members of gangs without allowing them to challenge that action in court.

Thomas and Alito dissented, arguing that a creative interpretation of the law should be allowed here; neither is a Trump appointee.

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 1 points 28 minutes ago

Thanks a lot for all the nuance, that's great !

[–] kevin2107@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago

Its for the press, they're trying to show a sense of control but they'll fold shortly

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Bet you a buffalo nickel that before the end of his tenure, he's going to expand the court with ultra-loyalists, all but completely open about how they will ignore the law or always interpret it in the way that gives Trump what he wants.

[–] StayDoomed@lemmy.world 12 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

I wonder if the chief justice will keep hanging his flag upside down and blaming his wife.....

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 8 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I think that was Alito, not Roberts.

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago
[–] burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago
[–] Xanthobilly@lemmy.world 133 points 1 day ago (3 children)

He always conflates the US and himself. He’s saying he is in danger if he doesn’t get what he wants.

[–] kevin2107@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

Purposely so

[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 57 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Or possibly the US is in danger if he doesn't get what he wants. Because he will make sure of it. Continue... to make sure of it...

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 4 points 22 hours ago

hes really saying "putin will get mad at me if i dont this or that"

[–] AlbertSpangler@lemmings.world 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Well as long as everyone keeps giving him whatever he wants, eventually he'll decide he's got enough and it will all be fine and everything will go back to normal.

/s, just in case

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Do not tempt Schumer.

[–] intheformbelow@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Poo Tin's playbook. The russkies trained him well.

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 47 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As expected. The attacks against the courts will only increase.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 13 points 23 hours ago (1 children)
[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Hey so if they do send a bunch of white supremacists to the houses of SCOTUS we're good to show up and start _____ing the bigots right?

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 61 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As always, Thomas and Alito have to demonstrate what pieces of crap they are.

[–] rhombus@sh.itjust.works 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

And their dissent is utter nonsense. It entirely hinges on the fact the petitioners didn’t wait long enough for an injunction from the District Court before their appeal the Circuit Court, claiming there is no evidence that they were in imminent danger of removal. People have been getting kidnapped and shipped off in a matter of days and these absolute chucklefucks are trying to pretend this is business as usual. Fucking Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence that they needed immediate relief!

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago

Thomas and Alito start with the ruling they want, then backfill some justification for it.

[–] HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com 72 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I wonder how many more unfavorable rullings the court has to make before trump starts demanding they be arrested.

[–] ExtantHuman@lemm.ee 1 points 58 minutes ago

He just threatened to send his brown shirts after them

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 39 points 1 day ago (3 children)

he doesn't even have to go that far. he could just tweet their home address and say they're the "enemy of the people"

[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 4 points 10 hours ago

When will someone free me of these meddlesome SCOTUS Justices?

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 43 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

That's the crazy thing. So many Republicans in congress have said they are afraid for their safety if they go against Trump. He's got the government in a vice grip. They clearly don't agree with how far he's gone, they've said as much privately, but refuse to vote against him in bills bcz Trump followers at this point are crazy.

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 44 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

So many Republicans in congress have said they are afraid for their safety if they go against Trump

i have less than zero sympathy. fuck them

They clearly don’t agree with how far he’s gone, they’ve said as much privately, but ref7se to vote against him in bills bcz Trunl followers at this point are crazy.

they should have thought of that before they signed on to supporting a rabid full-blown cult and their con man leader just to oWn TeH LiBs. again, fuck them. i'm not saying i hope they die, but i'm not not saying that either

[–] XnxCuX@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

That's ok I'll say it. I hope they all die

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago
[–] AlbertSpangler@lemmings.world 13 points 1 day ago

But they're fine with staying in their role. Keeping themselves in power.

They're cowards and traitors.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 1 points 22 hours ago

they just want to see how much they can grift before it becomes unprofitable to themselves.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

That's because our government is full of self-serving pussies.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] sfled@lemm.ee 1 points 19 hours ago

"I appointed them, I can un-appoint them.

[–] negativenull@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?

  • Henry II
[–] Zealousideal_Fox_900@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Go watch Season one of the Handmaids Tale. Suspending the constitution, etc.

It's happening, isn't it?

[–] Redditsux@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, I was there a month into this 2nd term of Trump. Canadian Margaret Atwood must be in horrors her writing is coming to life.

She posted on twitter a number times that "handmaids tale was not meant to be an instruction manual"

She gave up eventually. She does actively speak out against fascism theocracies and Trump, but at her age I can understand being worn out fighting it

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's all a circus to make them both look like they are doing what they are supposed to. So they can steal from you without you paying attention.

[–] DarkDecay@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The presidents a criminal. Can't we just send him away without due process? Oh wait, he's got money. Its easy to be a criminal when you have access to cash. I forgot

[–] bstix 3 points 1 day ago

Send away. Yeah. Send away. Just fucking send it.

[–] lemmy_acct_id_8647@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)