this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025
454 points (99.1% liked)

politics

30954 readers
1994 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Legal experts warn of a looming constitutional crisis after JD Vance suggested judges lack authority over Trump’s "legitimate power."

His remarks follow a federal judge’s ruling blocking Trump and Elon Musk’s DOGE from accessing Treasury Department data.

Musk also called for the judge’s impeachment, fueling concerns the administration may ignore court orders.

Scholars argue this undermines judicial authority and could trigger a systemic breakdown, but with Republicans controlling Congress, impeachment as a remedy appears unlikely.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 141 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I'm getting kinda tired of all these constitutional crisis, maybe one of the branches could start checking some of this bullshit. Just a thought.

[–] WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world 41 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Would be nice but congress is Republican controlled and for any court related stuff it could just go up to the supreme Court and be ruled Trump's way. Or just flat out ignored cause who is gonna stop him if he just ignores court rulings.

[–] burgersc12@mander.xyz 34 points 2 years ago (3 children)

But the Constitution! Some people are having trouble coming to terms with the fact that our systems have allowed this takeover to happen and the path to get out of this is narrowing rapidly. I'd be surprised if 3 years from now we even recognize the US as it once was.

[–] WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The real interesting question to me is how do you even really prevent something like this from happening? If every elected official decides the law doesn't matter who is left to enforce it on them? I feel like the only real options are the military stepping in when bad things are happening but that's a very slippery slope to normalize that or having powerful unions that can actually lead general strikes when these kinds of things happen. But atleast in the US unions have been beaten down so much that that isn't really an option so what is left really?

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We are. There is an amendment for this. Its a funny one known as the second. But good luck with that, especially if the military is going along with it.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The first ammendment is the opposition to authoritarianism - not the second.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Both are. Dudes just came from a monarchy.

[–] burgersc12@mander.xyz 6 points 2 years ago

I think we have a couple of bad options

  1. live with it
  2. end civilization as we know it

It's like a rock and a hard place...

[–] HeadfullofSoup@kbin.earth 10 points 2 years ago

By the end of 2025 the Us will be a christofacist theocracy if the non cult member don't start a resistance really soon and yes that mean violence and probably a civil war but no peaceful way will stop them now

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

But the Constitution

Remember when Republicans carried those vest pocket editions of the Constitution? They were keeping it at the ready for the time they could wipe their asses with it.

[–] burgersc12@mander.xyz 1 points 2 years ago

They haven't already?

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I'm fully aware of the makeup of the Senate and the "it's ok if it's an official act, you can have little crime, as a treat" ruling by SOTUS. Our government is a house of cards built on a "gentleman's agreement" to generally not be a dick.

I'm just sick of it already. There's a bird flu coming and the CDC cannot warn us about it and likely won't be rolling out vaccines. There will only be lockdowns in the Blue states. Which will allow the strain to become more virulent in carrier populations in Red states. Tariffs are going to fuck over small businesses allowing for more venture capital buyouts and to top it all off Elon is capturing as much data as his grubby little paws can grasp.

I don't want to make this comment any longer as it'll fuck up the thread for everyone else, but there's resources in the comment below if any of y'all would like

https://lemmy.world/comment/14977955

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The congress and the Courts don't matter. They don't have the actual physical power to enforce anything. The ones who enforce are the police and the army. That is the difference between constitutional states of laws and authoritarian regimes. Which system do the people with guns protect. And the people with guns receive their orders from the President and lower hierarchies of the executive branch.

So either the people with guns obey their superiors and abolish the division of power, or they disobey their direct orders and remove the authoritarian upstarts from power. If they choose to enact an authoritarian regime instead of removing the authoritarians from power, the only way out is resistance. Resistance against the people giving the orders and resistance against the people enforcing the orders.

[–] Kitathalla@lemy.lol 1 points 2 years ago

And the people with guns receive their orders from the President and lower hierarchies of the executive branch.

While police are generally 'executive' they are often supposed to take orders directly from the courts. Most warrants begin with phrasing in this manner: "[any] peace officer shall arrest..." Some states also allow judges to directly order peace officers to make arrests for offense committed in the judge's presence without a warrant being drawn up first. Even if their boss is telling them to not do it, they should ignore the unlawful orders and get along with the handcuffing, but it won't ever happen.

Just like how trump was soft-handed in every courtroom for the last four years, I can't imagine any judge right now ordering his appearance at court or an arrest. Anyone with half a brain knows that he would ignore it, and it would go to the supreme court and they would rubber stamp whatever he had done as being not subject to the law because he was 'acting in the presidential capacity.'

[–] 31337@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago

Ideally, the Dems should've pushed the security out of the way and physically removed the DOGE team and their hardware and software. Instead they performatively argued with a single private security guy blocking the doors. The Dems are already capitulating talking about letting the "blue dogs" vote with the GOP.

I'd like to see a large amount of Dems in congress and in other high positions to take direct action, get arrested, and jailed. I think this would force hard conversations in the media about what's going on, and courts and judges to more or less definitively rule.

[–] doctortofu@reddthat.com 11 points 2 years ago

Rookie mistake - you guys in the US thought "checks and balances" mean another thing, but it's now clear as day that they actually refer to checks from billionaires and bank account balances...

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago

Say, isn't there an organization out there whose members all take an oath to defend the constitution from all threats, foreign and domestic? I wonder what that organization might have to say about something like this, can anyone get their thoughts?

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 3 points 2 years ago

The Supreme Court has done everything but declare the Constitution null and void.