this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
413 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4125 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 175 points 5 months ago (6 children)

What the fuck man lmao.

These people are insane and the thing that drove them to insanity was a black president who rocked a tan suit and liked Spicy Brown Mustard.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 67 points 5 months ago

They were already fucking insane, but I get your point.

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 39 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Combine that with being asked to wear a mask during a pandemic, and uh, nope, reality rejected, time to attempt a coup.

[–] havocpants@lemm.ee 10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Absolute madness, I still don't understand why the right tried to turn a public health crisis into an issue of freedom and "owning the libs" or whatever.

All they had to do was sell MAGA branded masks and they could have made money while protecting their followers! Hell, they could have branded the vaccine the "freedom jab" and made getting it all about "doing your part" and patriotism. Fucking nutbars.

[–] dogsnest@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

Because Trump said it was the flu and the pandemic wasn't happening in USA.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 4 points 5 months ago

Oh, I assure you this is all because we forced them to desegregate. That's what forced them into private Christian schools and created this weirdo gumbo of Christian Conservative Capitalism

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 144 points 5 months ago (3 children)

“You come after me, I’m gonna give it back to you,” Martha-Ann Alito said in the recording of a private conversation at the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual dinner on June 3.

Get the fucken Mafia out of government.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 44 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

These are truly wretched people that have been granted unassailable power. This scandal has no teeth - Alito is going to sit on the bench until he dies or retires during a favourable administration.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 38 points 5 months ago (2 children)

This bitch isn't even in government. It's like an army wife trying to be addressed by her husband's rank.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

They look like they're flying together to me. Dont forget he said it's all her fault.

[–] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

This is a fantastic analogy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] zcd@lemmy.ca 88 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Y'all need to unfuck your supreme court

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 57 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Can't. Literally can't. Give up on us, we're done.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago (17 children)

You can. But don't want to do what it takes: voting. For Dems specifically.

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 22 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Bullshit. I vote for Dems in every election and I vote in every election.

But those traitorous fucks are there for life and you know they will hold on as long as they can to do at much damage at possible. There's no mechanism to remove them that has a chance at success as long as the fascist Republican party exists. We're fucked for generations

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If you really need me to amend what I said: It takes consistent and overwhelming Dem victories.

[–] criitz@reddthat.com 13 points 5 months ago

We knew that already

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] 242@lemmy.cafe 47 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Alito used to be Scalia's bitch, but his wife has taken over the position since he died, it seems.

She talks just like my Karen boomer aunt. It's always extreme revenge because they can't handle that no one pays any attention to them anymore. Oh, you hate LGBTQ people? Good for you. No one cares and Hollywood will keep doing their thing. They're irrelevant. It drives them insane.

[–] btaf45@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

Unbelievable that the reason why the Supreme Court is intentionally delaying Convicted Felon and Sex Offender Treason Trump's treason trial and supporting the GOP's War on Democracy is because Alito and his wife hate gays.

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 43 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Incoming new bill that will make it illegal to record any conversation with a Supreme Court judge and/or elected official.

[–] ajmaxwell@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

And their families.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 35 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

supreme court justices have lifetime job security to prevent corruption.

every other position in every other part of the government has term limits to prevent corruption.

edit: apparently people are having a problem with the point I'm trying to make. my point is that minimizing corruption is the supposed reasoning for term limits but also lifetime appointment, which are exact opposites.

obviously neither can prevent corruption as we can clearly see both kinds of positions hold lots of corrupt people. but at least elected officials can in theory be held accountable for their corruption in elections. supreme court justices answer to no one. for life. that's fucked up.

[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

No, it means they can be as corrupt as they want because they're unaccountable to anyone. They never have to be reelected and there's no mechanism for removing them, or even establishing and enforcing rules. They've found the Ultimate Loophole.

[–] Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 months ago

A trigger is a mechanism of sorts.

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

that's my point

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Term limits absolutely don't prevent corruption.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

no, but they can surely end it sometime. a president can be corrupt but they have to fuck off after 8 years max. alito can say fuck democracy, blame his wife for it and live the rest of his life doing his best to ruin yours.

[–] cybersandwich@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I'd say they limit the impact of corruption.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 32 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Please proceed, Mrs. Alito.

Seriously though she's just exposing more and more how the Court is an absolute sham that isn't even close to impartial. It actually convinces me that long terms are a bad idea for everyone -- including the judges' family.

The Supreme Court must be impartial, and that binds not only the judge but their immediate family as well. It's unrealistic to expect people to show political impartiality for that long, and the way that it should work is that judges effectively give up their right to free political speech while serving. They cannot be allowed to express political opinion whatsoever.

With that in mind, shorter terms with a much larger body of justices feel appropriate. There also needs to be a new check on the Supreme Court so that their word isn't final -- the very idea goes against our idea of Checks and Balances. 2/3 of Congress, or a simple majority of Congress plus the President should be able to override the Court.

Anyway, what I remind myself when I get pissed about this -- reform will happen. These cretins have made it inevitable. The only question is when, and each time they spew their vile hate, the justices and their spouses bring us closer to reform.

[–] ZombieMantis@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

The checks and balances you're describing do exist, unfortunately Congress is (and has been for quite some time now) dysfunctional. A simple majority in both chambers and the President's signature is enough to undo many SCOTUS rulings by passing a new law. They can also pass amendments to the constitution, which used to happen with some regularity, but we haven't passed one since Clinton was in office.

If you want Congress to act as a check on the court, then you need Congress to be functional.

[–] wolfpack86@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

But there are checks against their rulings.

Most of their decisions are around laws that can be rewritten to correct whatever negative outcome was seen in the court. This meets your simple majority and presidential signature standard.

For claims of constitutionality there is still a check via amending the constitution... Which is not far from your proposal of 2/3 of Congress. You just also have to clear 3/4 of the states.

I think the problem is the idiots that are supposed to be the check are fully supporting what the courts are doing--and the idiots don't actually represent the interests or will of the people.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 8 points 5 months ago

There's already a "check" on the court. The President nominates them and Congress approves them. Also, just because the Supreme Court says something is unconstitutional doesn't mean it won't happen.

They have no enforcement mechanism. The President can execute laws how they interpret them. Congress can just pass slightly different versions of the same law. The Supreme Court is the weakest of the branches. People just need to fucking vote in their elections and the problem will solve itself.

If you go visit a small Republican town you will notice that people don't usually protest, they just donate to politicians and vote. That's how you win.

Fucking vote.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social 25 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Alito added that she has designed her own flag in her head, which she wants to have made and flown. It features the Italian word “vergogna,” which means shame.

No no no. You don't get to just use italian whenever you want to veil your shithead sense of self worth. You leave a romance language out of this and put that shit in plain English.

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

It's like conservatives using "Let's Go Brandon" so that they avoid the appearance of impropriety, when really, they're just self-censoring because they're too scared to say it outright.

[–] Spitzspot@lemmings.world 24 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Democracy will return the favor.

[–] distantsounds@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

What democracy? All I see is oligarchy

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

democracy? supreme court can call elections for you. and has. wrongly.

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Guts on Windsor's part to both go to this event and record her conversations. Makes me a little uneasy from a style standpoint, but I think it's worth it because it more viscerally shows that Alito is partisan and not impartial.

[–] btaf45@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago

If I could I would award her the Medal of Freedom.

[–] designatedhacker@lemm.ee 4 points 5 months ago

I wish it would've stayed anonymous. Then she'd get all paranoid and alternate her friends.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago

Can't believe this wasn't an onion headline.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

If everyone keeps pushing her she will have a breakdown on camera that she will never live down.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

This woman has a lot of time on her hands.

load more comments
view more: next ›