this post was submitted on 11 May 2026
494 points (99.4% liked)

politics

29727 readers
2614 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 0 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

I think there is a better way. Assuming that the USA is broken up into major regions, each with their own judiciary and executive, they can send some justices to represent them on the national stage. The president of a region also picks a justice when their term begins, and that justice has a term of up to 5 years or until the next president picks their own justice. When the new executive justice is picked, their predecessor is removed from office. The judiciary and congressional justices have 10 year terms.

This prevents executive justices lasting longer than 10 years, likely 5 if a president sucks. Meanwhile, the judicial and congressional justices last 10 years by default, making them more influential than the executive.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

That changes judges into representatives and completely defeats the entire purpose of the judicial branch and removes judicial independence.

It also changes the country into a confederation. We tried that in 1776 and it didn't work AT ALL, and then part of the country tried it again in the 1860s, and it lead to a war that resulted in more US deaths than all other US wars combined.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Elsewhere in the thread, I mentioned other things. Specifically, each judicial branch selects 2 justices without any interference from the executive and congressional branches. The congresses get to choose two of their own, and the executive has one justice, that is retired when a new president selects a different justice. Assuming we have four regions, that would be 20 justices on the national court.

In any case, the United States are already broken. We got an single executive branch that is in the process of kinging itself, a single congress that has abdicated responsibility, and a single judiciary without teeth nor independence.

To my mind, having regions would check and balance things, because there would be competition between them to be top dog within the overall nation.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

Yes, but if each district has an executive that can also fire judges it still removes any independence from the judicial branch - completely negating its purpose.

The judicial branhlch's primary function at a national scale is to protect against the tyranny of the majority, and they can only achieve that if they are not subject to the wrath of elected officials who are upset with rulings they make after appointment.