this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2025
378 points (98.0% liked)

politics

30906 readers
2569 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It sounds like a bunch of Democrats want to cave in exchange for no concessions whatsoever. Edit: Bloomberg has more details

Current likely Democratic votes for this:

  • Shaheen - NH
  • Hassan - NH
  • King - ME
  • Fetterman - PA
  • Peters - MI
  • Durbin - IL
  • Warner - VA
  • Kaine - VA
  • Ossoff- GA
  • Warnock - GA

If you want to change things, you need to call their DC office NOW, and leave an email if you can't.

Edit 2: enough Democrats joined the Republicans to reopen the government with no real concessions.

The list:

  • Durbin
  • Hassan
  • King
  • Cortez Masto
  • Kaine
  • Shaheen
  • Rosen
  • Fetterman
  • Schumer
  • Gillibrand

There was a caucus meeting right before this, so the bulk of the Senate Democrats were likely OK with giving in, even if not willing to vote for it in public

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] I_Jedi@lemmy.today 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

This is how. I'll put the relevant amendment part here so we know what we're working with:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

The SCOTUS can claim that the office of President renews, and the old one ceases to exist. Thus, they can say that Trump was elected to the 45th and 47th offices of President, each once. They can further state that the 22nd amendment specifically refers to being elected to one of these particular offices of President, of which 47 have existed to date.

The SCOTUS can then conclude that, since Trump has not been elected to the 47th office of President more than twice, he is eligible for a second term of the 47th office of President. To us, this would be his third, but to the SCOTUS, it would be his second.

[–] MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I can't see how anyone would go with this. He also has never been the 48th President, so why not let his number just increment.

Also, the amendment uses the definite article, "the office of the President". Not an office, or office of a President. I understand that 5 justices can just say whatever the hell they want, but virtually anyone would understand this is neither the intent NOR the most sensible reading of the text.

[–] I_Jedi@lemmy.today 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That's what a potential shutdown in Trump's third term would solve.

For 2028, go with the 2nd term of 47th logic to get Trump in again.

Then, pass a new law to clarify the index logic, and allow for Trump's time as 47th to transition into 48th in 2032. Shutdown the government to force the Dems to vote yes on it.

Trump remains President until the day he dies.