this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2025
266 points (98.9% liked)

politics

22517 readers
3624 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
266
Speaker Mike Johnson floats eliminating federal courts as GOP ramps up attacks on judges (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 6 days ago by arotrios@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Summary:

Facing pressure from his right flank to take on judges who have ruled against President Donald Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Tuesday floated the possibility of Congress eliminating some federal courts.

It’s the latest attack from Republicans on the federal judiciary, as courts have blocked a series of actions taken by the Trump administration. In addition to funding threats, Trump and his conservative allies have called for the impeachment of certain federal judges who have ruled against him, most notably U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who attempted to halt Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants.

“We do have the authority over the federal courts, as you know. We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding over the courts and all these other things,” Johnson told reporters on Tuesday. “But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act.”

Johnson, a former constitutional attorney, later clarified that he was making a point about Congress’ “broad authority” over the “creation, maintenance and the governance” of the courts. Article III of the Constitution established the Supreme Court but gave Congress the power to “ordain and establish” lower federal courts.

Congress has eliminated courts in the past. In 1913, for example, Congress abolished the Commerce Court and its judges were redistributed to the federal appeals court, according to Congress.gov. And in 1982, Congress passed legislation abolishing the Article III Court of Claims and U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, and established the Article I Court of Federal Claims and the Article III U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 70 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Not how that works, and you don't have the state votes to make that happen. Stop posturing you gigantic piece of shit.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 34 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Not how you imagine it works. The rule of law is over. This is the New Order.

[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago (2 children)

One of the methods floated was just defund it. Maybe the judges are wealthy enough to work for free but our Judiciary runs on the backs of many civil servants that aren't judges. If there is no budget then the courts effectively cease to exist.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago

Future opening to federal court proceedings:

"All rise. Presiding is the honorable Elizabeth Jackson."

"Thank you, bailiff. We're meeting today on case number 2940184, the US vs Kreiger on the crime of drug kingpin. Before we begin, first a word from our sponsor"

"Rachet Strap! The energy drink illegal in 3 states! The drink the forbidden energy!!"

"Prosecution, you may call your first witness."

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

I mean just ask Clarence Thomas. From what I’ve gleaned, he hasn’t paid for shit in years.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

To republicans, the rule of law is not law in the legal sense of the courts, it’s the ability to force people to do what they want them to do via strongman tactics. Trump is the law.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I'm not sure there's anything in Article III that would really stop him. They don't have the votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster to legislation but it's not clear the Democratic party is willing to do those, so who knows.

Too bad the Democratic party didn't look into reforming the courts when they had majorities in Congress.

[–] thallamabond@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

While I completely agree. Last time democrats were in full control was 2009-2011 and the time before that was 1993-1995.