this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
541 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2685 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"This is B.S.—you were doing this as a dilatory tactic to help your political friend," says Rachel Maddow on the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the Trump immunity argument, delaying his coup trial. "And for you to say that this is something that the Court needs to decide because it's something that's unclear in the law is just flagrant, flagrant bullpucky."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] unreasonabro@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

If the supreme court suddenly starts acting weird, that's a declaration of intent. As in, they intend to help the man who put them there get his job back.

Because law and the mafia are two sides of the same coin, and it's the person holding the coin who puts the spin on it.

Impetuous people will hear that and take it as license to do anything; actual grownups will recognize that makes the law more precious, not less. The supreme court is now split down that line. "Yes, but I just gotta do this thing" is why there aren't supposed to be strings attached to Supreme Court justices; they're supposed to be found first, and invalidate the candidate.

All it took was an immoral president and now poof, the whole institution is functionally just gone, and here we are, chickens with our heads cut off trying to figure out what to do about it. cept it's hard to think once your head's been cut off. maybe building our legal system as a layer cake with no access to the top levels for normal humans was the sort of shitty thing we weren't supposed to do, flying in the face of all those principles it was "built on" and whatnot.