this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2026
159 points (98.2% liked)

politics

31549 readers
2077 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Alito, 76, is one of six conservative justices on the nine-person Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative lean wouldn’t change if Alito retired and Trump nominated a new justice. But Alito’s retirement would allow Trump to appoint a fourth justice to the court. Alito was nominated by then-President George W. Bush in the fall of 2005 and took his seat on the bench in January 2006.

Trump has lashed out at the Supreme Court for several rulings against him on controversial issues like his sweeping tariff policy and his challenge to birthright citizenship. Alito sided with Trump on those two issues.

The timing of a Supreme Court justice’s retirement is crucial because the party in power can change the court’s political leaning for decades.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ButtermilkBiscuit@feddit.nl 68 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Tracks for shitstain partisan judges like alito. "Not a political organization" then coordinates retirements with the party lol.

[–] wheezy@lemmy.ml 53 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (5 children)

Could be worse. You could be a liberal justice and refuse to step down despite your age and health. Then decide to kill over when Trump is in office and allow a supreme court to destroy everything you represented or accomplished.

RBG was the ultimate boomer refusing to pass the torch and choosing to recognize their own mortality. She was 87 fucking years old.

Alito is being smart and not being stupid like RBG was. She should have stepped down as soon as Obama was elected the 2nd time.

[–] StabbingSky@lemmy.zip 26 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Friendly correction in case it wasn't an autocorrect screw up, it's keel over

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 13 points 3 weeks ago

Let's just keep in mind that RBG was the deciding vote in handing the 2000 election to it's loser, George Bush, and right after that the R party started their voter fraud allegations and laws.

You can draw a straight line from the 2000 election, to 2020, to now. RBG was a trecherous piece of shit.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

RBG was the ultimate boomer refusing to pass the torch and choosing to recognize their own mortality. She was 87 fucking years old.

Definitely not a boomer.

[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 5 points 3 weeks ago

Nope, she would have been "Silent Generation", I believe.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Its the 1% vs the working class, not generation vs generation.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

You missed the point by thi________________________s much.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.today 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The ONLY reason billionaires have the power they have is because of conservatives (including neo-liberals). Conservatives have always protected the wealthy. They worship the rich.

If not for conservatives, the normal people would be able to charge billionaires with crimes. If not for conservatives, billionaires would be required to pay fair taxes. As long as conservatives continue to breathe our air, billionaires will remain untouchable.

We cannot defeat the boss until his foot-soldiers are dead.

[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Question if you asked a multi-millionaire boomer to give up there social security to someone who needs it. Say the family makes $400k a year which includes $40,000 in social security. Do you think they would willingly give that up? Do you think thats an easy political goal?

"hey social security is intended for people who depend on it financially and not a buffer to your large portfolio"

We could solve social security by capping the OUTFLOWs at $250k. Go poll some boomers on that lmao let me know if you still think they are working class.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] TronBronson@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

Boomers are not working class since most of them are actually taking money from the working class right now, and are incentivized to keep electing these god awful politicians. They were working class now they live off investments, and social security, both held up by the actual working people.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

She should have stepped down as soon as Obama was elected the 2nd time.

Not that it likely would matter, as Turtlefucker would have found a way to stall and kill his nominee for her spot anyway.

[–] wheezy@lemmy.ml 13 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

One failure of the Democratic party is not an excuse for another failure. Obama had the same power under the reading of the constitution to appoint a Judge without Congress if Congress refuses to hold a vote.

When the constitution was written they didn't write down specifically about what happens if Congress refuses to do its job. That's the exact reasoning that the Republicans were acting on.

The Democrats have lost so much for this country by standing by and "following the rules". They get dunked on by a dog playing basketball while the Republicans say "nothing in the rules that says a dog can't play basketball".

You'd benefit from watching this nearly 8 year old video. It will give you a lot of perspective on how we have gotten to where we are today and why we continue to see the same thing.

https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A

[–] RunningInRVA@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They all did this though. RBG was certainly holding out until after Trump was out of office.

[–] ButtermilkBiscuit@feddit.nl 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Woops for her I guess. Maybe the lesson there is retire when younger and skip the "holding out for better circumstances" bullshit because you never know what might happen. Sounds like alito got the memo.

[–] RunningInRVA@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

I’m not disagreeing.

[–] HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Roll the dice. They don't get more loathsome than Alito. Pardon me, for a moment I forgot that Thomas exists. Fuck it, roll the dice anyway. Maybe we get a non-lizard-person by accident.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The federalist society was created just so we don't get a non lizard person in by accident, and since it's inception, we haven't had a single one, even as they were majority until that point in the modern era.

They handpick these guys from law school and groom them and make sure they won't come down with a case of morality. Picking guys they have evidence of crimes on probably helps in that respect.

[–] ElDuderino@lemmus.org 3 points 3 weeks ago

Yup. They never ever want another Souter.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

He's going to appoint an A.I.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

If the democrats take the senate back it would be rather funny to see an appointment locked out "until the people can have a say"

[–] Zedstrian@sopuli.xyz 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The problem is if Alito retires between the election and Republican senators being replaced on January 3, the Senate would rush to confirm his replacement to prevent the potential blocking of Trump's nominated candidate.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

Yep. We'll never see the Do Nothing Cons work so hard as they will to fuck over the will of the people.

[–] xenomor@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Lol, as if congressional Democrats would ever actually do something.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.today 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Establishment Dems (AKA neo-liberals) are conservatives. They are controlled opposition, so obviously they will seat whomever Trump appoints. He could appoint Elon or even Grok, and the conservative Dem leadership will do it.

We need to be voting for progressives if we want progressives. And we need to be calling out establishment Dems and neo-liberals as the vile, subhuman conservatives they are.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 16 points 3 weeks ago

Do it after the Midterms, so the Democratic Senate can do the McConnell Shuffle, and just block every single nominee they put up for two straight years, until the Dems take it back in 2028.

It will be so much fun to hear the MAGAs cry that it isn't fair! BWAHAHAHAHA!

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Can you imagine if Trump nominated himself to the supreme court?

[–] cmbabul@slrpnk.net 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Well you spoke this into existence now, he’s gonna do it

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

That'd be awesome. Dude has about 2 years left.

[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I’m sympathetic to the idea that we don’t need a “Supreme Court” at all. We have a representative legislature, we have federal judges. All these fucking assholes do is distort the constitution to serve an aristocracy that is not unlike the aristocracy we fought a revolution to overthrow. They’re goddamn traitors.

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

It's pretty trivial to cut the Supreme Court out of the loop. All you have to do is write into the language of a law that ruling on this law is outside the jurisdiction of SCOTUS. SCOTUS has original jurisdiction on a few issues, like issues involving disputes between states. But most of what it rules on are it's jurisdiction simply because Congress hasn't assigned the issue to any other court.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] KAYDUBELL@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

He’s just waiting to see how the midterms play out. Pretty much guarantee he’ll retire if the Dems gain a bunch of seats.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.today 18 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Well, we can't approve an appointment with only two years left before an election. That would just be unreasonable. Guess we'll just have to wait until after 2028 to seat anyone.

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

Yep. Bitch McConnell rules.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Dropping news like this seems akin to “don’t announce close to an election where it could potentially impact election”

… or am I incorrect, here?

[–] echo@lemmy.today 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's why they're announcing it. They want to bring out their voters to make sure he gets replaced with another asshole.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

Oh shit, that's it.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Supreme Court appointments? Congress? Constitution?

These silly games yall want to play are so outdated.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.today 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The only games we need to be playing right now are making plans to publicly execute traitors the instant we resume control. All conservatives are traitors and should be dealt with as such, starting with these illegitimate SCOTUS conservative cockroaches.

[–] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 2 points 3 weeks ago

If only we could get the timid and tepid lot that think they are the American left on board with that, but they are so goddamn squeamish about violence of any kind that they believe we will imprison the bastards, which really means that they will walk, just like Nixon, Reagan, the Confederates...

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

Lol. Better do it in the next week, buddy.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

The cons are great at ramming through people in record time when they need to. See Amy Coney Barrett...

load more comments
view more: next ›