this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2025
225 points (97.5% liked)

politics

26201 readers
2370 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 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Jaysyn@lemmy.world 136 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Could you at least try & stop obeying the fascists in advance?

  • Soap Box
  • Ballot Box
  • Jury Box <--- We are here.
  • Ammo Box

Reminder: Federal judges, including SCotUS, can deputize as many citizens as needed to enforce their rulings & there are thousands of highly trained park rangers currently out of a work.

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 76 points 1 week ago

If park rangers turn out to be the saviors of our democracy then I will gladly donate to the forest service the next time I'm out at a campsite.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Could you at least try & stop obeying the fascists in advance?

She was put there to do exactly what she's doing now...

She's a woman that belongs to a cult that thinks women should be subservient ...

However, it's not just their spiritual practices that have drawn scrutiny. The group's approach to leadership and decision-making, often described as hierarchical, places a significant amount of power in the hands of a few leaders. Men hold the primary leadership roles, and women, referred to in the past as 'handmaids' (a term they have since abandoned), are expected to adhere to traditional gender roles, a stance that has fueled debates about gender equality and women's rights.

https://www.cultfacts.com/cults/people-of-praise

She was a literal handmaid. Not just in action, that's what women were called in her cult:

Acting like ABC in any capacity is going to help fight fascism isn't just useless, it's actively harmful

No matter what she says, this is the result she wants and why she's on the SC in the first place.

*ACB though ABC (US) will also do nothing to stop fascism

[–] Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 71 points 1 week ago

That implies that the supreme Court has not been in the business of expressly enabling the majority of the shit he's been doing, which is pretty fucking dishonest.

[–] DirkMcCallahan@lemmy.world 54 points 1 week ago

"Justice Amy Coney Barrett admits that SCOTUS has abdicated its duty."

FTFY

[–] Sunschein@piefed.social 32 points 1 week ago

One of the 6 in every 6-3 decision to help Trump get out of control thinks he's out of control, waow

[–] selkiesidhe@sh.itjust.works 32 points 1 week ago

And it's your fault!!! Fuck off! I hope the history books eviscerate you bunch of spineless shitweasels. I hope everyone related to you become social pariahs because of your fascist-fellating bastardry.

[–] notsure@fedia.io 25 points 1 week ago

...the only way this could happen is if the SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, consented...

[–] Aljernon@lemmy.today 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's not the the Supreme Court can't control the president, it's that they choose not to.

[–] bhamlin@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

Oh no... The consequences of my actions... Oh no...

[–] lemmylump@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Thanks to you and your five other Nazi friends you cunt.

[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 week ago

If they admit this — we have a King. If they don’t do anything about it — they are sycophants and need to step down.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago (2 children)

"Coney Barrett then admitted that the court’s hands would largely be tied because there is a limited enforcement mechanism at its disposal."

Only fix I can think of would be to take the Justice Department away from the Executive Branch and place it under the Judicial Branch, but that would involve re-writing the Constitution and that's a door we definitely DO NOT want to open.

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

Oh here we go they are giving Trump more "outs" from rule of law. Fantastic.

[–] Brokkr@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

In a functioning government, that is not a structure that we would want because then judges would not be a neutral 3rd party (at least as intended).

There may be merit in the idea of moving the Inspector Generals under the Judicial branch however the but even that would require rewriting the constitution.

In reality, congress is supposed to have this responsibility, but our current congress is broken for a number of reasons.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

who says there needs to be 3 branches? add a 4th… having a partisan DOJ makes the judicial basically powerless

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Personally, I think that America should be split into four regions, each with their own congress, president, and judiciary. The supreme court can have each region submit four of their retired regional judges apiece to serve the nation as a whole. Plus another five judges, each chosen by a regional president, and a figurehead president who was elected by the other presidents. Toss in term and age limits, to make sure that they are swapped with fresh minds relatively often.

21 national justices, with a lot more checks and balances.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

Remember, they’re rubber-stamping fascism to avoid looking weak when Donald inevitably sidelines them.

Well, Uncle Clarence is probably a true believer.

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

ACB is an integral part of the Nazi regime. She can eat a bag of dicks.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The correct answer would be, "Nothing, because the Supreme Court doesn't have an enforcement arm. That's for the Legislative and Executive branches to handle." Even if there were 9 hyper progressive judges on the court, if the other 2 branches were controlled by fascists, like they are now, there would be fuck all they could do if their rulings were simply ignored.

Someone said they could deputize their own enforcement outside the DoJ if it really came down to it? But not sure how that'd work at scale, only in an isolated way.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

#NOKINGS 10/18/25 - Find your local protest: https://www.nokings.org/#map

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago
[–] NewPerspective@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Republican incompetence masquerading as republican power.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

No really you treasonous twat?

[–] leadore@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Part of the reason the SCOTUS has been avoiding ruling against trump is that they don't want to be in that "Emperor has no clothes" position where he defies them with impunity and everyone sees that they have no power over him and his minions at all. The other part is that at least 4 of them are delighted by his actions and 2 are at least OK enough with what he does to go along with those 4.

[–] maxxadrenaline@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

So the people in the checks and balances can’t do their job? Check and balance that orangutang!!!!!!

[–] CircaV@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣have the day you voted for America 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣#clowncountry