this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025
464 points (99.6% liked)

politics

19924 readers
3465 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
 

Summary

A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze federal funding, accusing it of violating a previous court ruling.

The lawsuit, filed by 22 states and D.C., argues the freeze is unconstitutional and causing harm. Trump, JD Vance, and Elon Musk have suggested defying court orders.

The administration appealed the ruling, while legal experts warn officials like the Treasury Secretary could face contempt charges if they ignore it.

The case tests executive power limits and judicial authority.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 22 minutes ago

Or what? This clown gonna convict the other clown of a felony?

[–] spicehoarder@lemm.ee 11 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

"mom tells infant to 'cut it out' more at 6"

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Trump is only 1cm...according to Stormy. When is that?

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 61 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Ok, the last time he violated a judge's orders, the charges were much more serious and he was facing potential jail time, both from the criminal trial he was a part of and the gag order imposed on him.

He all-but told the judge to go fuck himself on a daily basis right outside the courtroom, violated the gag order ten fucking times, and received exactly no punishment. And that was when he was a criminal defendant.

He's now President of the United States, has all three branches of government in his back pocket, and was basically anointed as a king by the Supreme Court, who declared he's all but immune from prosecution.

And this judge thinks he's going to obey his orders this time? He told you guys to fuck off on the daily when he was a civilian, and y'all did exactly nothing about it. Now he's POTUS. The fuck is he planning on doing about it now when he violates his orders again? Send out more orders? Trump could literally tell this guy to go fuck himself and his orders with a chainsaw live on television and there's fuck-all he can do about it.

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

So you want the judge to give him a pass?

[–] stevegiblets@lemmy.world 9 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

the hottest take i think I have ever seen. well done.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 16 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

"and this judge thinks"

You can't just bitch any time someone tries to do something. Does this judge think he's going to single handedly rein in this fascist administration? No, probably not. Should he try anyway? Absolutely.

We don't need more Robert Muellers.

[–] Punchshark@lemmy.ca 72 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (4 children)

Curious if there will be a "straw that broke the camels back" moment with america and this president or is everything he ever does just going to be taken by the public. Im sure the french would have a guillotine out by now

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 20 minutes ago

This is the camel not the straw.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 70 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

I just wanna know where all the “I need guns to fight back against tyranny” people are. They’re reeeeal quiet.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 6 points 7 hours ago

They won't do shit, to them that's not tyranny because their team won.

[–] ComicalMayhem@lemmy.world 17 points 12 hours ago

a not insignificant portion of those people support the current administration. tyranny to them is Dems in control of government.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 28 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Responsible gun owners don’t crow about their weapons.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 31 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, but there are PLENTY of irresponsible ones screaming that nonsense every time a school shooting happens. It’s not like they’re rare specimens.

[–] guiguinofake@sh.itjust.works 10 points 10 hours ago

Guess who the irresponsible ones voted for.

[–] Punchshark@lemmy.ca 9 points 13 hours ago

I agree. Lots of talk, all the walking has been backwards...

[–] Banana@sh.itjust.works 23 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Fascism is not exactly sustainable. If not the people or the military, he is bound to piss off someone close to him enough to betray him eventually.

The issue is how many lives will be lost in the process.

[–] Punchshark@lemmy.ca 13 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

I'm very curious to what will be the "moment"

[–] Banana@sh.itjust.works 15 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah. This is definitely what I would call "the cool zone".

In the moments between bouts of existential dread, I am at the edge of my seat!

[–] match@pawb.social 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

God, we're back in the Cool Zone already?

[–] Banana@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

Regrettably :C

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] meowmeowbeanz@sh.itjust.works 31 points 12 hours ago

So the circus continues. Another day, another contempt-of-decency performance from the executive branch’s greatest hits. McConnell’s ruling isn’t just a legal smackdown—it’s a neon sign flashing “constitutional arson in progress.”

Funny how “irreparable harm” gets shrugged off like a minor paperwork error. The admin’s playbook? Gaslight, obstruct, project until the courts buckle under sheer audacity. Democracy’s not just teetering—it’s doing backflips off a cliff while they bet on which branch breaks first.

[–] auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 104 points 16 hours ago (4 children)

I’m sure he’ll listen this time judge.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 44 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

I'm actually really hoping he doesn't. It's better we get this over with sooner than later. Piss the courts and the legislature off before he has gathered enough of a foothold

[–] AngryRobot@lemmy.world 7 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Speed run the end of democracy! LFG!

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The democracy part was already over when he ignored Congress, this is just accelerating the time period from no longer being a republic to the deciding moments of what will become.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

At this point it's still just a good attempt at not being a republic. We were, after all, dumb enough to vote this guy in legitimately.

We're in the "if you can keep it" phase.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

The President cannot override a law/statute with an executive order it has to go back to the legislature. Trump's removal of the enforcement teams for their sanctions that were signed legislation was a direct act against the constitution. Every Congress member and senator swears an oath to defend and uphold it. How could we still call it a republic if the representatives decision was illegally overturned and they have not yet removed the executor of it?

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 1 points 35 minutes ago

Because it's been a very short time. It's still possible laws are enforced, although dangerously precarious.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

This is really the ideal path. Fracture fast, begin the healing.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Also if there is going to be a war, I'd rather it be in my mid 30s than late +. And before my niece and nephews are old enough to l remember it would be nice.

Also while some media still exists that isn't fully owned by them

[–] burgersc12@mander.xyz 12 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

It is literally in their playbook, ignore court orders. Dark Gothic MAGA is terrifying

[–] errer@lemmy.world 11 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

This video is prophetic and I highly encourage everyone to watch it. It sounds like a conspiracy theory except we see virtually all of it happening in front of our own eyes right now.

[–] jason@discuss.online 2 points 4 hours ago

And it was posted 3 months ago

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 61 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

It will be really interesting for the supreme court to decide if a president can be held in contempt of court.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 52 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

It doesn’t even need to go that far. The next step after failure to comply with a court order would be dispatching the US Marshalls. They report to the DoJ, so I’d say that’s pretty unlikely.

Scholars and pundits are saying that act of inhibiting their own accountability will be the official end of the US government as it was designed, and the official beginning of an authoritarian regime.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 12 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

That "official acts" rule is gonna do a lot of heavy lifting.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 1 points 59 minutes ago

That's the trick though. Contempt of court isn't the same as breaking a law and doesn't have the same restrictions. For example, a person can be held in jail for contempt indefinitely without trial until the person yields to the demand of the judge. This sometimes happens to people who refuse to pay child support that the courts know they can afford.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 19 points 14 hours ago

Ya'll have primed him to ignore your shit because nothing serious has ever happened to him from the courts. You fucking baffoons. Lay in your bed.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 33 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (9 children)

I think the judge is mistaken. This is an official act. That means it’s not constrained by things like rulings. In fact, law just isn’t applicable. They really should put more effort into staying up-to-date. /s

[–] LordCrom@lemmy.world 8 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

Well, supreme Court already said if it's an official act, then he is immune. So if he decides a court order but it's an official act, then he can't be guilty.

Great job there scotus

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 9 points 14 hours ago

And if he Doesnt?

[–] Shawdow194@fedia.io 15 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Or else....??

Another strongly worded letter?

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 16 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

I guess in a perfect world, impeachment and removal from office. If that fails then military coup? I don't see either of those things happening.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›