politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The voices of reason are becoming outweighed here.
Yeah so let's just ignore that they exist.
You misunderstood me, possibly because you were telling me to go fuck myself on another post. "Assaultpotato" is a voice of reason on this post. People read a news story about the Supreme Court staying an order and now want to impeach the whole Court?
I'm afraid the politics and news communities hosted on Lemmy servers are falling off the deep end.
It was one commenter and the following comments rebuking them are much more highly upvoted. It's maybe a bit early to stick a fork in it.
Has 8:1 upvotes to downvotes.
Has 43 upvotes as of this comment.
I guess people just don't like to downvote. Which is outside of my experience, but maybe I am more polarizing.
Some instances disable downvotes. Certainly not all, but some. I'm not 100% sure if that means they dont count down votes in their communities, or if they dont allow their users to downvote anywhere, but I suspect the latter.
Personally I reserve downvotes for rulebreaking, offensive comments, spam, things of that nature. Differences of opinion I just don't upvote. Perhaps this is more common on Lemmy than other places.
Well. Yeah?
They're powerless, they might as well not exist. The only purpose they serve is keeping even more fascists off the Court.
What a braindead take.
You say that, but majorities across the board are razor thin. Assuming there's still midterms a lot of this can be flipped.
The courts of course will be harder to fix
... but we were talking about the Courts?
In our system a large enough majority in congress can overrule a lot of what the courts are doing unless they go absolutely bonkers.
The court can say there's nothing the in the constitution that prevents "X", but congress with a large enough majority can pass a bill without the president's signature to expressly allow "X".
Our courts have not yet shown a willingness to go totally rouge and have voted against Trump several times this administration alone, but they always could go rouge I suppose. And of course they make shitty decisions like these.
Overturning Roe was a rogue act, completely defying precedent. Just recently they ruled that banning healthcare for trans children is constitutional too, despite it clearly being discrimination based on sex i.e. a recognized class.
They're making rogue decisions all the time, they just occasionally rule against Trump so you don't start losing faith in the Courts and don't start looking for alternative solutions.
Unfortunately viewed from the constitutionalist theory which has always existed within the court it does make sense. There is a fair argument, one i personally disagree with, that the result of Roe is not in the constitution and therefore not something the court can legislate from the bench. Likewise with the arguments used against Trans youth.
I don't like these decisions, I don't support these decisions, but they do exist within the traditional frameworks and legal arguments of courts past. We've been rather fortunate for the past 30 or so years to have a more liberal court that prefers to take an interpretive view.
The only decision they've made recently that is outside of that is the idea that the president has total immunity for "official acts" that has no basis in the constitution at all.
If anything the current court make up emphasizes why things like Roe should have been codified years ago.
These are dark times for many of the liberties we all enjoy, but for the most part this courts actions do line up with historical precedent of a conservative court. It is a nightmare, and far too many people are going to suffer. I just hope that we all make it out of this and Institute real reforms across the board.
Defying precedence is a rogue act, regardless of whether they can reverse engineer an argument for it or not. The Constitution didn't change, going rogue and declaring old decisions "wrong" delegitimizes their whole role. If they can just make up new decisions we don't have laws, we have opinions.
As to the attack on gender affirming care, sexual discrimination is federally prohibited by law because sex is a federally protected class. That's the law. If you read their decision, their argument is basically "it doesn't count because reasons" and it's entirely farcical. Another rogue decision.
And they just made a new rogue decision taking away habeas corpus from anyone sent to another country by ICE. Now Courts can't stop deportations, people will get deported to third countries and then have to argue that their deportation was illegal.
Stop defending the Court. It's embarrassing.
You know we're probably very close on the political spectrum.
I've just studied a lot history, and you've basically described the entire debate that's been within the Supreme Court since day 1.
Look at slavery and segregation. They ruled in favor of those several times, and eventually they even reversed their decisions. Like you said the constitution didn't change the court did. I wouldn't say ending school segregation was a rogue act.
I personally hate this court. But I think it is very important to analyze these decisions in the historical context of the court.
Like I said these decisions are terrible for the American people, they will take decades to repair, and cause terrible harm. My hope is we make it out of this and we have true reform of the courts.
Between you and me I'd love to see this whole system torn down, but I'm doubtful that will happen in my lifetime.
And I'll give you the suspension of habeas corpus and they released a multitude of decisions today. Your comment from days ago is now much much more accurate imo based on the decisions of the past 2 days.