this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
36 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22200 readers
3514 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
 

The Supreme Court gave the first glimpse into how it will handle a second Trump administration last week by narrowly ordering the State Department to disburse $2 billion in congressionally appropriated funds to USAID contractors for work they had already done. Though the ruling was merely preliminary, it suggested that at least five justices were not willing to give Trump carte blanche.

all 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Drusas@fedia.io 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We're so fucked. There are no constraints. What are the courts going to do, release the US Marshals upon the people who control them? Good fucking luck.

And I blame every single person who voted for him, voted third party, or didn't vote. We knew what he was going to do. They had a 900+ page playbook ready to go. This is the fault of two-thirds of our voting-eligible population. Yes, they were set up for failure with decades of propaganda and inadequate education, but that does not absolve them from what they have done.

Not to mention that he admitted flat out that he was going to be a "dictator on day one". Well, he was. Thanks, my fellow Americans.

Time for me to buy a couple rifles and a lot of ammo.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That said, the US Marshals are all people.

I know if MY employer told me to do something unconscionable, I’d refuse. The reverse is also true.

[–] suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Everyone believes that they're the one who is willing to stand alone against evil, unfortunately the evidence is in and that just isn't how the overwhelming majority operate.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

Yeah, but if one does, it sets the tone for everyone else. Source: I’ve had to stand up to my employer.

[–] lupusblackfur@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not a "surprising legal tactic", just another new tactic...

For all the collective stupid that comprises Chump's legal team, I gotta say they are inventive in fabricating ever new and novel ways to circumvent the laws as written.

Illegal and non-nonsensical as those means and methods may be, they are inventive.

🤷‍♀️ 🤦‍♀️

[–] tonytins@pawb.social 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

A while back, I discovered why America is a loophole paradise. To quote, "the law code does not cover what is legal; it only defines what is illegal." Also, fixed the headline and added a quote.

[–] theshoeshiner@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

In my defense, it was my inauguration day, and I really wanted to do it.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago