this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
122 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19453 readers
4728 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
all 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 50 points 1 day ago (2 children)

No, because as i understand it, you can change the meaning of words without directly challenging the constitution, and get what ever result you want. Like changing the definition of enemy combatant to mean any immigrant. Now retroactively you can pick or choose who is a REAL citizen.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 5 points 17 hours ago

It's worse than that. The Supreme Court can use any kind of specious logic they want to interpret the Constitution, or no logic at all (as they've done recently). And the only remedy within the system is impeachment of the "justices."

And what that means is that the law is whatever they say it is, unless and until they are held accountable.

The system is broken. It won't fix itself.

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

Free societies hate this one trick

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If the title of an article contains a question, the answer is no.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago
[–] BadJojo@communick.news 17 points 1 day ago

They won't enforce shit.

[–] bookmeat@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, the final check on authoritarianism is the people.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 3 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

And the people are divided by identitarianism. The oligarchs roam free.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

It doesn't take hundreds of millions of people to change things.

[–] Xanthobilly@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

I believe it’s around 3% of the population.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They haven’t so far. Why would they start?

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

They ruled that one time that states can't unilaterally overrule the will of the people. That was nice. But that's how low the bar is, people weren't sure if they would completely override democracy (yet).

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 hours ago

Only did that because they're terrified Newsom would start forcing leftie bullshit on Californians or whatever, needed to cover their asses until they got more xontrol