this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2026
204 points (100.0% liked)

politics

29727 readers
2786 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 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] stankcheez@lemmy.world 90 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

possibly the worst Supreme Court decision ever handed down - and there are a whole shitload of awful SC decisions - strictly b/c it was immediately apparent to anyone with two brain cells to rub together how it would enable and entrench corruption and influence in American politics

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 35 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

possibly the worst Supreme Court decision ever handed down

Perhaps, but you're going up against the classics. Dred Scott. Plessy v. Ferguson. Korematsu.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 34 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Also, Citizens United was only the latest in a long series of bad decisions that gradually elevated sociopathic artificial entities over natural persons.

  • Dartmouth College v Woodward
  • Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
  • Dodge v Ford Motor Co.

etc.

[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

decisions that gradually elevated sociopathic artificial entities over natural persons.

Yeesh. Not sure if I'm just naive for not really putting 2+2 together before reading your comment, or overly paranoid about how dystopian scifi the future might get from here?

But I never really thought about the laws that were used to elevate corporations over natural persons possibly foreshadowing a future that's controlled by something that's somehow even more ominous and artificial that these corporations are currently racing to create.

I have to say in 2026 I'm leaning more towards me just being naive because corporations are themselves a byproduct of a society obsessed with using technique as a means to achieve the most efficient end.

And at this point, I'm also pretty sure that while most rational humans hear alarm bells and see clear premonitions of dystopia when they hear a question like "What could possibly be more efficient than a world where all human imperfections have ceased to exist?," the sociopaths running these corporations believe they're ushering in paradise like Father Crystal.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 45 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Let's turn that could be into an is

[–] Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago

Turn them into was/were.

[–] CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world 32 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I’ll believe it when I see it

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 2 weeks ago

yeah it is the absolutely biggest improvement that could be made (outside of ousting the current administration) but I can't see it being done currently.

[–] SGGeorwell@lemmy.world 26 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Citizens United will be remembered as that one time John Roberts accidentally destroyed the United States because of his hubris. A really cool dude, that John Roberts.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 25 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It wasn't an accident. There's a great podcast called 5-4 that has gone through some of the worst decisions in history. They talked about Citizens United, and how Roberts had to stretch the truth to come to that decision. He's done that a lot, he does the Roberts two-step, when he first upholds a law that he doesn't like, but makes up some shit about how there are "questions" about it, and then his allies in the broader Conservative movement then bring a lawsuit that specifically targets one of those "questions" so that Roberts can overturn the law.

Thomas does something similar, except it's even more egregious, he will write an unhinged dissent or concurrence that makes bonkers legal arguments that may or may not be fully related to the case at hand, and then when he's up to write for the majority, he'll cite his own arguments in those dissents and concurrences. Those documents have zero legal weight, but he cites them as if they were settled law.

[–] stickly@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

It's crazy to me that there isn't some kind of scientific review process when they write these things up. Formal logic has been worked out for centuries and you can just look at the math to confirm what they're saying makes any sense at all.

It wouldn't solve all problems but some of these recent rulings are so divorced from reality that they've left logic in the dust.

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Actually, one of the many times John Roberts ~~accidentally~~ purposely destroyed the United States because of his hubris.

[–] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The best argument for time travel is our ancestors somehow already knew a toilet should be called "the John."

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

I was gonna say Clarence Thomas is building a larger garage for all the RVs he’s getting to proclaim Citizens is here to stay.

[–] scutiger@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

They'll probably replace it with something even worse

[–] switcheroo@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago

It would be a massive win for all of us peons just trying to survive while our gov actively tries to kill us.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 weeks ago

You can’t end citizens united without first overturning Buckley v Valeo

If we do this, please don’t half ass it.

[–] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

No politician would ever vote against getting unlimited and legal slush funds

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

A couple would.

But yes not most

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Pitchforks & Molotov coctails can be very motivating to representatives

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Liberty comes at the end of a gun.

They'll never give it to you. You have to take it.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Im gonna call this now.

If on some chance the supreme court strikes down SpeechNow because of this, they'll somehow stay it until after the next general election as its "too soon" and "too hard" to change it now.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Is someone handing out drugs? There is no way that is happening. Not without massive legislation and likely some convictions.

[–] tacosanonymous@mander.xyz 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Your scenario is rather optimistic, honestly.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Doesn’t it, though.

[–] trackball_fetish@lemmy.wtf 7 points 2 weeks ago

Too late, hope it was worth it fuckers

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

I think it's too late. The damage worldwide is irreversible.

Yes! Holy shit if we could see citizens United overturned it would be fucking huge. Like a reverse of thinking they would never see Roe v. Wade overturned in their lifetime.

This always seemed like such a distant dream, and not like it being overturned would just magically undo all the other evil shit Citizens United has helped accomplish, but it definitely would be a very big step towards restoring and improving democracy.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Shit we occupied nearly every city in the country demanding this, and we couldn't get it then

[–] daannii@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So I have mixed feelings.

So obviously it's a bad thing. But. Because it's now legal to bribe. We know who is getting bribed easily.

Once it becomes illegal again it's going to be harder to know who is getting bribed.

[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If only it were legal, bank robbers wouldn’t have to wear masks. Then we would know who’s doing it.

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I think I have been misunderstood. I should have said. The silver lining is now we see clearly how many politicians are sellouts. And we know their names.

I definitely think Citizens United was one of the worst things that happened to this country.

I only remark that now we know something we didn't know before. We suspected. But now we literally have receipts.

I worded my first comment poorly.