this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2024
420 points (99.3% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2155 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ryrybang@lemmy.world 119 points 3 months ago (3 children)

OK politicians sure do like wasting taxpayer dollars on unwinnable court cases.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 83 points 3 months ago (1 children)

unwinnable court cases.

Under any other Supreme Court regime, I'd agree with this.

But under this Supreme Court.....remember that a lot of these previously-unwinnable cases are being brought up at the urging of Clarence Thomas and others on the court who have openly said they'd like to "revisit" these cases. We are talking about a court who has used foreign countries' laws, and medieval history to justify their rulings, and there's no reason to believe they won't do it again. Remember, they just got finished conjuring up the idea of near-absolute Presidential immunity out of thin air.

The case is definitely not unwinnable.

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Alito and Thomas should be removed from the supreme Court, Thomas's wife is a traitor and you're judged by the company you keep and Alito is either a treasonous coward and blamed his treasonous wife, or he also keeps company with traitors. They have no right to be on the court and their decisions specifically should be vacated.

Edit: not to mention all of the ethics violations.

[–] GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The Constitution is clear that keep their position in good behavior. The vast majority of people can see that accepting bribes is bad behavior. The question is who goes about removing justices? IIRC that isn't specifically laid out.

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Id suggest that removing corrupt justices could be an "official act" by the president?

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Its an investment 💀

[–] TootSweet@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Now that the Lemon case is overturned, who knows just how unwinnable the superintendent's case is.