this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2026
16 points (80.8% liked)

politics

27115 readers
3089 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
 

That the major questions doctrine may now be used to rein in the Trump administration’s trade policy should give no one comfort, particularly not progressives or liberals. The principal purpose of the major questions doctrine will continue to be blocking climate action, industrial policy, labor protections, and any serious attempt from the Left to challenge entrenched economic elites. Progressives celebrating this ruling risk encouraging the construction of the very legal architecture that will be used to defeat their own agenda for decades to come.

...no matter how hard the liberal justices try to finesse this issue, there is no way they can avoid cosigning an opinion that invokes the major questions doctrine. The doctrine is simply the only route to five, six, or even seven votes against the administration in this case. This means that a defeat for the White House would depend on liberal justices’ formal acceptance of the major questions doctrine for the very first time.

all 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] inmatarian@lemmy.world 31 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Wait wait, so, the reason we shouldn't stop the tyrant is because the survivors won't be able to perform the same tyranny?

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It's because the predicted ruling on this issue relies on an extremely awful bit of doctrine that will become formally accepted if used in this ruling - and that means it will be very difficult to prevent it being used against progressive policies in the future.

It's a bit like the judicial version of the patriot act - hypothetically it sure would help us catch terrorists, but maybe we should think it through a little bit more before using this specific legal mechanism to do that.

It's not "we shouldn't do this" it's "we should find a different method of doing this, because this method isn't going to stop trump and it has a ton of unintended consequences"