this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025
664 points (99.6% liked)

politics

26778 readers
2320 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
 

Summary

A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze federal funding, accusing it of violating a previous court ruling.

The lawsuit, filed by 22 states and D.C., argues the freeze is unconstitutional and causing harm. Trump, JD Vance, and Elon Musk have suggested defying court orders.

The administration appealed the ruling, while legal experts warn officials like the Treasury Secretary could face contempt charges if they ignore it.

The case tests executive power limits and judicial authority.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com 138 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I’m sure he’ll listen this time judge.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 61 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I'm actually really hoping he doesn't. It's better we get this over with sooner than later. Piss the courts and the legislature off before he has gathered enough of a foothold

[–] AngryRobot@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Speed run the end of democracy! LFG!

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 10 months ago (3 children)

The democracy part was already over when he ignored Congress, this is just accelerating the time period from no longer being a republic to the deciding moments of what will become.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

This is really the ideal path. Fracture fast, begin the healing.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] burgersc12@mander.xyz 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

It is literally in their playbook, ignore court orders. Dark Gothic MAGA is terrifying

[–] errer@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This video is prophetic and I highly encourage everyone to watch it. It sounds like a conspiracy theory except we see virtually all of it happening in front of our own eyes right now.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Walican132@lemmy.today 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I know right? Usually felons don’t listen to the legal system.

[–] undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch 11 points 10 months ago

Especially when they have not one but 34 felony convictions.

[–] Punchshark@lemmy.ca 106 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

Curious if there will be a "straw that broke the camels back" moment with america and this president or is everything he ever does just going to be taken by the public. Im sure the french would have a guillotine out by now

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 90 points 10 months ago (4 children)

I just wanna know where all the “I need guns to fight back against tyranny” people are. They’re reeeeal quiet.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 41 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Responsible gun owners don’t crow about their weapons.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 38 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but there are PLENTY of irresponsible ones screaming that nonsense every time a school shooting happens. It’s not like they’re rare specimens.

[–] guiguinofake@sh.itjust.works 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Guess who the irresponsible ones voted for.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ComicalMayhem@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

a not insignificant portion of those people support the current administration. tyranny to them is Dems in control of government.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 16 points 10 months ago

They won't do shit, to them that's not tyranny because their team won.

[–] Punchshark@lemmy.ca 9 points 10 months ago

I agree. Lots of talk, all the walking has been backwards...

[–] Banana@sh.itjust.works 33 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Fascism is not exactly sustainable. If not the people or the military, he is bound to piss off someone close to him enough to betray him eventually.

The issue is how many lives will be lost in the process.

[–] Punchshark@lemmy.ca 15 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I'm very curious to what will be the "moment"

[–] Banana@sh.itjust.works 16 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Yeah. This is definitely what I would call "the cool zone".

In the moments between bouts of existential dread, I am at the edge of my seat!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 10 months ago

This is the camel not the straw.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 68 points 10 months ago (3 children)

It will be really interesting for the supreme court to decide if a president can be held in contempt of court.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 58 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It doesn’t even need to go that far. The next step after failure to comply with a court order would be dispatching the US Marshalls. They report to the DoJ, so I’d say that’s pretty unlikely.

Scholars and pundits are saying that act of inhibiting their own accountability will be the official end of the US government as it was designed, and the official beginning of an authoritarian regime.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That "official acts" rule is gonna do a lot of heavy lifting.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Do they bite the hand that feeds them to appease their ego.

[–] meowmeowbeanz@sh.itjust.works 39 points 10 months ago

So the circus continues. Another day, another contempt-of-decency performance from the executive branch’s greatest hits. McConnell’s ruling isn’t just a legal smackdown—it’s a neon sign flashing “constitutional arson in progress.”

Funny how “irreparable harm” gets shrugged off like a minor paperwork error. The admin’s playbook? Gaslight, obstruct, project until the courts buckle under sheer audacity. Democracy’s not just teetering—it’s doing backflips off a cliff while they bet on which branch breaks first.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 39 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

I think the judge is mistaken. This is an official act. That means it’s not constrained by things like rulings. In fact, law just isn’t applicable. They really should put more effort into staying up-to-date. /s

[–] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 16 points 10 months ago (4 children)

One would hope that’s not necessary!

[–] SanicHegehog@lemm.ee 19 points 10 months ago

And yet here we are

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The internet has taught me that there is no such thing as sarcasm that everyone can detect.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

This is the timeline where that guy took POTUS. It's necessary.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LordCrom@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well, supreme Court already said if it's an official act, then he is immune. So if he decides a court order but it's an official act, then he can't be guilty.

Great job there scotus

[–] gdog05@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I get your point, but just because you and your freedom are immune to prosecution doesn't mean your money and property are safe from seizure. For example, if it's believed that Mar-a-Lago was used in the process of a crime, like withholding documents or discussing illegal things, then it can be seized in civil asset forfeiture and Trump would have to prove his innocence to get it back. Same with his money. I think it's possible in the current context to find a judge willing to try this. I have no idea how the execution of such an order would play out. But there are still interesting cards unplayed.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] spicehoarder@lemm.ee 26 points 10 months ago (2 children)

"mom tells infant to 'cut it out' more at 6"

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 10 months ago

Or what? This clown gonna convict the other clown of a felony?

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago

Ya'll have primed him to ignore your shit because nothing serious has ever happened to him from the courts. You fucking baffoons. Lay in your bed.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 19 points 10 months ago (3 children)
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

no no, asking nicely will surely work.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Shawdow194@fedia.io 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Or else....??

Another strongly worded letter?

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I guess in a perfect world, impeachment and removal from office. If that fails then military coup? I don't see either of those things happening.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mvirts@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

Contempt, that's literally what it is

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Hahahaha,

Remember when SCOTUS gave ambiguous power of a king to the president?

Looks like there is gonna be more power struggle than previously implied.

load more comments
view more: next ›