8 points

America is an unserious country

permalink
report
reply
2 points

And no President can ignore the Courts.

permalink
report
reply
59 points

I’ve never in my life wanted so bad to wake up to a news story about another person dying.

permalink
report
reply
11 points

It’s the only reason why I immediately check on here. I truly want Elon dead immediately and then Trump.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yea but it ain’t about the death. It’s about the suffering, suffering is terrifying

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Only one?

permalink
report
parent
reply

I wanna see a headline stating that a freak hurricane wiped out every Republican in the house, the Senate and the executive branch, miraculously sparing any non party members and the buildings themselves without a scratch.

permalink
report
parent
reply

About 250 could save millions of lives. Considering around 9000 die every day in the U.S. they would make a 2.7% uptick for one day, and maybe everything can get better

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”

-Supreme Court, Marbury vs Madison

permalink
report
reply
120 points

The more important take from this article is that Trump has escalated his claims and now claims that nothing he does is subject to judicial review at all.

The scary part is that there is a non-zero chance that the Supreme Court could rule in his favor. And at that point, God help us all.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

And all his GOP underlings will fall in line and support his outrageous statements.

permalink
report
parent
reply
89 points

If the supreme court agrees, we’ll get to test how well the second amendment helps maintain a free country.

I’m going to assume it does nothing, and all the gun deaths were for nothing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points
*

The second amendment was created to make it impossible for the president to have a standing army.

That was the whole “militia” thing. Federalist Paper 29 covers the entirety of it in like … 12 paragraphs.

The states would have to require every man to own a firearm and train to be in a militia as designated by Congress that would muster for national defense because armies make empires. And newly created US Americans wanted to be free of imperial horseshit.

The second amendment wasn’t to defeat a president who broke bad. Men elected to POTUS were never supposed to be like Trump. And that was our, as US Americans, biggest blindspot. That an American president would never treat Americans like how American presidents treat smaller nations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

That ain’t how the current supreme court interprets it, so let them eat cake.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Those 2nd amendment people have been real, real quiet lately.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

If the supreme court agrees, we’ll get to test how well the second amendment helps maintain a free country.

Look at Jan 6. That is exactly what they think is happening. They are making America great again. There is a reason people are getting doxxed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

They keep saying that, yet doing absolutely nothing. As usual.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I am optimistic the SCOTUS won’t take the bait. Not because they’re against Trump, but rather because they don’t seem as eager to surrender their own power than Congress is. Even in their notoriously pro-Trump rulings last year, they took care to keep the Judiciary involved in interpreting the extent of the Executive’s powers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Yet Roberts and the scrotus were fuckin dumb enough to give potus nearly complete immunity, which is functionally the same. If the courts rule against any specific action there is nothing to stop him from immediately doing it again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Go read that ruling again. It was nearly complete immunity for official acts, with the courts deciding what constitutes an official act. It was as much of a power grab for the Judiciary as the Presidency.

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points

At that point, he’ll die, Vance will take his place, and will be so un-charismatic that he’ll be defeated by a Democrat in 2028 which will find themselves with all this power thanks to the Supreme Court… but will prefer to take the high road and reach across the aisle only to get fucked once again.

Well, I tried.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Had me in the first half, not gonna lie. For a second, I thought you believed that the Democrats would try to do something productive.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

Nah even if they tried SCOTUS would figure out some way to suddenly narrow it’s ruling. And being a good Democrat they’d comply.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

There’s already a path for them to do this.

Trump is already calling for a ban on nationwide injunctions, saying that any injunctions or rulings can only be applied to the specific people involved in the lawsuit and are not binding anywhere else.

If Congress passes such a bill, Trump will certainly sign it.

And once that happens, the Supreme Court could at that point just anoint Trump with whatever powers he wants and not have to worry about those powers being used by the next President, since their rulings would only apply to Trump by default, which is exactly what he wants. It would literally turn our judicial system into Calvinball.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points
*

I’m pretty sure that would effectively end all state mandates to participate in the Constitution, effectively dissolving it.

It’s very clear that Trump does not realize that dissolving the Constitution means states no longer need to adhere to the joined Republic. That agreement IS the Republic. If it no longer exists, then States are their own territories, and DC is nothing.

States activate their reserve guard forces, assume control of stationed assets, and stop sending DC money. That’s it. Then it’s every state for itself, and guess where all the good shit is he thinks he’s just going to order around? In those “Coastal Elite” states he’s always belittling.

No incoming money, no people to order around, and only his little cavalcade of dipshits who no longer have positions of power…

As somebody else had mentioned, he’d be killed in a heartbeat, and then the groveling and backtracking would immediately begin to try and undo what he’s done.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Krasnov, mission accomplished with the United States finally dissolved, take your well-deserved rubles, comrade!

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Any backtracking would be useless, once the country is gone there is no way to put it back together without a lot of bloody violence. Even then it will be a powder keg ready to explode again as soon as the leader who managed to put it back together is gone.

These 50 states are held together by a common history and the republic they participate in. The history is meaningless once the republic is gone. At least we will get to see the birth of a bunch of new nations. But that will come with a ton of war as the wanna dictators in red states try to take whatever they can.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Exactly what Putin has wanted since his takeover. They’ve been talking about this specific thing for two decades now.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 16K

    Monthly active users

  • 20K

    Posts

  • 556K

    Comments