this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2025
108 points (99.1% liked)

politics

26437 readers
2731 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 full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to rehear a panel’s order allowing National Guard troops to deploy to California, prompting the dissenting judges to pen lengthy warnings about the danger the United States now faces.

...

A single judge had requested the vote to rehear the case, after a panel — composed of two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee — stayed a district court order blocking the Guard’s deployment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

I love the idea of being a centrist/liberal judge in the US right now, putting on your robes in the morning, looking in the mirror and thinking "ah yes, the rule of law, something that still exists here!", it pokes my existentialist sense of humor just right.

It is like imagining someone dutifully and self righteously bailing water out of a ship that is already on the seafloor.

[–] Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'd rather they try and pretend at least to prop up the idea that not every institution is dead, because if they don't, they might as well actually be dead. Some part of fighting fascism is just the optics of not giving up entirely

[–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I guess but judges are essential to lend legitimacy to all forms of government, democratic and authoritarian.

That changes how I perceive the role of "fighting" authoritarianism as a judge.

[–] Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago

As with everything is never cut and dry eh

load more comments (2 replies)