this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
345 points (99.1% liked)

politics

31754 readers
5381 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
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 118 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Good thing you just ruled that the president has broad immunity for official acts as president, ya know basically making him a king in all but name.

[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 56 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Well, there's no way anyone could have known that Trump would abuse that power.

Other than the past decade of him abusing every little bit of power he could, of course.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Trump seems like a reasonable guy, im sure he would never abuse that power.

[–] MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago

Trump seems like a treasonable guy, im sure he would ~~never~~ always abuse that power.

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Really wish Biden had taken advantage of that and, you know, saved our democracy.

[–] redlemace@lemmy.world 75 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Well .... trump SHOULD be impeached. Ignoring the law should be an absolute nono.

[–] Xanza@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The Senate is trying to pass laws to make dissenting opinions seen as a mental illness. You really think they have enough votes for impeachment? lol

[–] moakley@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's the Minnesota state senate.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 40 points 2 years ago

Hey Roberts - go fuck yourself.

[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago (2 children)

“He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties,” Trump wrote, referring to his own accomplishments of those benchmarks in the 2024 election. “HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING!”

Oh for fucks sake, just shut the fuck up already. This is all you're going to say each time you feel wronged. It's not a mandate you stupid fuck and you lost the popular vote twice.

“WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”

And the irony is lost on you.

[–] laranis@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 years ago

It is all projection.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

He did win the popular vote this time. Not by much. He absolutely does not have a mandate.

Popular vote 77,302,580[2] 75,017,613[2]

[–] Zippygutterslug@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago (2 children)

A bit of buyer's remorse from Roberts haha

[–] N0t_5ure@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Perhaps it's starting to dawn on him that his power as a judge is under threat.

[–] Steve@startrek.website 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Leopards would never eat a judge’s face.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 16 points 2 years ago

You know, this is interesting.

Trump has power, but it's granted to him by authority of Congress. He has legal immunity for official acts as president, by authority of the supreme Court.

The theory of the balance of power means that Congress can strip him of that authority, and the supreme Court can determine if an act is official or not or if he actually has immunity or not.

The way this works is based on money and sanctions (imprisonment, revocation of clearances, etc).

The court can deputize anyone. Ultimately, what that means, is that as long as the court wishes to retain its power, it needs to enforce decisions.

If the Supreme Court, namely Roberts, actually has his own interests in mind, the court can act accordingly. Otherwise, it's just theater.

We will now find out if the court still wishes to maintain its power, or if it has none at all.

[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 16 points 2 years ago

Time to reap your whirlwind, you som of a bitch

[–] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 years ago

You're so fuckin far out of your element, Johnny

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 2 years ago

Oh no a rebuke? My pearls!

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Leopard eating faces all over the place.

Can I interest you in my new investment venture? It's essentially Kitty Ozempic. We're predicting the market for it to grow by 8000% over 4 years because of all the fat leopards.

[–] sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I dunno what to tell you, man. You reap what you sow.

[–] mriguy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Sadly, for the most part, the rest of us reap what he sowed. He’ll be fine.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 years ago

When even the chief clown of the institution that gave you even more power thinks you're going too far, it might be too far.

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

I'm sure Trump cares deeply.