this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
60 points (100.0% liked)

politics

21933 readers
3837 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
 

In an emergency appeal Thursday, Trump asked the justices to rein in or shelve three nationwide injunctions lower-court judges have issued against his bid to end birthright citizenship. But his request could have repercussions far beyond the debate over the controversial citizenship plan.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pezhore@infosec.pub 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This administration is either short sighted, or it never intends to have elections that Dems can win again.

How many federal laws/executive orders from Biden and Obama were challenged in courtrooms that were predisposed to go against them? I'm fairly fucking certain one of the dozen student loan forgiveness attempts was ruled illegal for the country because of some conservative judge in Texas.

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 days ago

Before an audience of Christians, the Republican presidential nominee supposedly said if voters elected him, his administration would ensure that "it'll be fixed, it'll be fine, you won't have to vote anymore"

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/vote-four-years/

[–] just_another_person 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

But Trump’s acting solicitor general, Sarah Harris, argued to the Supreme Court that federal district judges have no authority to issue sweeping orders that block policies nationwide. Instead, Harris suggested, an injunction should apply only in the geographic district where the judge is located — or only to the specific individuals or groups that sued.

Well that's how it works. Y'all need to read a book, or at least get a dictionary. If there is legal precedent to redefine what "federal" means, then that would also apply elsewhere, idiots.

This argument is beyond stupid. If FEDERAL judges are still able to block ILLEGAL actions in their locales, then your argument still doesn't stop them from issuing the orders to block actions by executive, now does it? The Supreme Court isn't the "boss" of other courts. It's an appellate body of review.

They're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here with their talent pool.

[–] MyDogLovesMe 8 points 3 days ago

Agreed, but he still owns SCOTUS so they may do his bidding.

[–] Nightwingdragon 9 points 3 days ago

"Hey, could y'all do me a solid and just cede more power to me voluntarily? That'd be great!"

-- Trump