News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Huh? Why?? I mean, yeay!!! But these justices...? What do they have in store for us 😒
That was my first thought too. On the heels of the "war on judges," and Trump dragging SCOTUS into his battle with the appeals court on Friday, followed by a small group of Dems suddenly going rogue and caving on the shutdown, which seems so bizarre since the circuit court ruling for SNAP to be paid in full was also made on Sunday.
Then today, Trump again demanding the Supreme Court just undo what two lower court judges have now decided, after an emergency stay was granted by a democratically elected justice on Friday, specifically so the final decision could be made by the lower court, and now this very unexpected decision by conservative justices. What in the fuck is actually going on?
Like if I thought conservative SCOTUS justices actually gave a fuck about trying not to appear biased to the public, I would say they seem to be making a very strong point to do so with this decision. If that's what this is, then yeah, it makes me nervous about wtf they have up their sleeve? Like what could possibly come next, that they would offer us this concession like some kind of deranged love bombing?
Like I wish I lived in a country where I could celebrate this, and trust that a decision like this was made without any ulterior motive or strategy in mind, but I don't. Fuck I hate this walking on eggshells bullshit.
Because the supreme court is extremely ideologically mixed. You have the 3 liberals who are fairly similar. But then you've got Thomas and Alito who are far right, and able to believe whatever they've been materially incentivised to believe. You've got Kavinaugh who is a classic New England conservative fuckup. Kennedy and Gorsuch surely have their own distinct beliefs, but they're not really interesting enough for me to have heard what those beliefs are. Then there's Barrett who is certainly ideologically interesting, and has affiliation with a catholic cult and firmly believes that marriage is the foundation of society.
Also, there's been a long conservative backlash to stare decisis that's the reason we're even in this position. It used to be basically unheard of for a ruling to be overturned unless it was egregiously misdecided like Dred Scott. While traditional ideologies of the court are basically shot for decades thanks to a massive conspiracy against the united states by groups like the heritage foundation, court decisions aren't yet wholly at their whims.
With the exception of Roberts though (who was on a steering committee but claims he was never a member) all of the conservative justices were members of the Federalist society.
On Friday at the annual conference for the Federalist society, the deputy AG gave a speech attacking the Bar association and declaring a war on judges for targeting conservatives with judicial activism.
Kavanaugh and Barrett also spoke about being under siege and standing strong with your conservative values in the face of withering criticism.
That is such a typical conservative cult "it's us vs them" bullshit tactic to preemptively paint themselves as the victim even though they hold the upper hand in every possible way.
I would say not every conservative member of the Senate has the same set of values, but we've seen over and over again that they will go against their own values in order to further Trump's agenda. It's not always clear if it's out of true loyalty or a sense of fear about what will happen to them if they get out of line.
Whatever it is, when they start pulling that us vs them bullshit, it's hard to believe they won't all revert back to trying to help overthrow the government.
https://www.axios.com/2025/11/09/doj-blanche-war-activist-judges-dc-bar-associations
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/07/justice-barrett-conservatives-criticism-charlie-kirk/87138931007/
Oh absolutely, but knowing their ideologies as human beings gives you the power to wedge their camps apart. Sorry I'd forgotten the name of the federalist society. It also helps to know how they'll fall on issues.
Of the 6 right wing justices all are opposed to the enlightenment ideals that our nation was founded on, but how and why are important strategical information.
We on the left tend to see those we oppose as a monolith rather than a coalition that could splinter into our level of infighting if pushed in the wrong way. In a similar vein we are also capable of forming a unified coalition that actually affects change in accordance with our wills
I think they're always on the verge of splintering, and we've seen that happen several times already between Epstein and the Heritage Foundation supporting Tucker Carlson.
But I think people like Peter Thiel are also constantly controlling and manipulating people within both the democratic and Republican parties on order to keep themselves afloat.
They can and do throw endless amounts of money at anyone they need to help them gain control in just about any situation, but they also strongly rely on that cult/"family" strategy to keep their base reigned in. We're a united "family," but the family has to accept that any member can be thrown under the bus by the paternal figures in control. For the good of the family, of course.
Modern problems need Spanish inquisition solutions, huh? 😒
i wouldnt call suddenly dems going rogue, it was most likely orchestrated by schumer, because these dems arnt up for re-election in the midterms. fetterman is pretty much a known conservative so, his was obvious. its kinda obvious it was convenient was ready to open up, and then opposing the other votes.
I bet a few of them probably met a gay person or have one in their family now so they decided to pass. Although, I know they are dying to take away another one of our rights so I'm as puzzled as you are.