this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2025
91 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22730 readers
3604 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
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

“I will get to the bottom of whether they violated my order, who ordered this and what the consequences will be.”

"And if I don't get answers in the next ten hearings, then dammit we will have a hearing about possibly of having more hearings and after thirty or forty of those, I swear there will be consequences!"

Boasberg, an appointee of President Barack Obama, didn’t mention Trump’s name during the hearing

WHY THE FUCK NOT?

The judge portrayed Trump’s invocation of war powers last week — part of a secretive effort to summarily deport hundreds of Venezuelans to harsh conditions in a Salvadoran prison — as a potentially “alarming” assertion of executive power, which the administration claims is virtually unreviewable by any court.

No fucking shit. Are you planning on at least trying to actually do something about it? Or do we need another half-dozen hearings for that?

“It seems to me the only reason to do that is if you know it’s a problem and you want to get them out of the country before there are suits filed,” the judge said.

That's exactly what he's doing, you fucking chode.

The ultimate decision may be out of Boasberg’s hands.

Then why does any of this even matter if there's a hearing by a higher court in 3 days?

The group included at least one man who was not Venezuelan as well as some women, all of whom the Salvadoran government declined to accept and were instead returned to the United States.

Confirmation that Trump is just cramming brown people onto planes and shipping them wherever. Which means if you're brown enough to be accepted by El Salvador, Trump can just disappear people at will.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

Let me save you some time. He definitely did.

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Of course not. You know the rules. We're only at about the 3rd or 4th order that Trump has violated. The rules are that there must be at least ten violations of court orders before a judge can hold a hearing and then ultimately rule that Trump is President so there's nothing he can do anyway.

I mean.....you don't think that....the rules are the same for Trump as they are for the rest of us, right? Because that would just be silly.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 weeks ago

"Vows to determine" something that is obvious to anyone paying attention. Good job.