this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
1727 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2228 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
[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (4 children)

The Supreme Court must be impartial regardless of legislative and executive political mudslinging of the time. That's the whole point of different branches of government.

If SCOTUS made the decision after seeing Trump and Biden debate, or knowing Republicans will control both houses, then they aren't doing their job as they should. There's a reason why juries are encouraged not to watch TV or media that would cloud their decision, and the same should apply to judges.

People forget the bloody whole point of checks and balance!

[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 11 points 4 months ago

The Supreme Court must be impartial regardless of legislative and executive political mudslinging of the time.

Yeah sure, except that they clearly aren't. So the question is what do we do now?

[–] EchoCT@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Cool story. Now figure out how to stop them other than 'vote'. Cause we know that's just kicking the can down the road.

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 1 points 4 months ago

They're only appointed for life.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Is non violent insurrection on the table?

[–] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

I'd be okay with a violent one. Drag the justices out and tar and feather them. They want to make this country great again? Fine. Let's show them what made it great: vigilante justice against tyranny.

[–] EchoCT@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Every non violent success story has someone behind the non violent one ready to burn shit down that makes the non violent one the easier choice.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago

They didn't forget: they explictly and knowingly realized they could abuse the checks and balances and there would be no consequences. And they have so far been right.

[–] Psycoder@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The Supreme Court must be impartial regardless of legislative and executive political mudslinging of the time.

then they aren’t doing their job as they should.

There were times in my life when I was pretty much a functioning alcoholic. If you think that the supreme court has even a shred of decency left, then I want to drink what you are drinking. I don't think I ever got that drunk it my life.