this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
394 points (99.5% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2114 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 67 points 2 months ago (2 children)

She is so blatantly biased. I wonder if even this Supreme Court would back her up.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 84 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

She seems to have been advised by Clarence Thomas on this, so the idea to do this came from the supreme court.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/clarence-thomas-opinion-jack-smith-appointed-special-counsel-rcna161975

Thomas did not definitively answer the question, but U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon echoed his approach to Trump’s election interference case

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 41 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I don't think anyone on the Court is as far right or as nakedly corrupt as Thomas. Just because he's advising her, I wouldn't take that as an endorsement from the full Court. He frequently writes concurring opinions that go way beyond anyone else.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago

Maybe, but for sure she is starting off with an active voice on the supreme court in her favor. That's a good start.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

I was gonna say Alito, but even for him I had to pause because Thomas is just so bad.

[–] dudinax@programming.dev 3 points 2 months ago

It's real interesting that they thought dismissal for a transparently bad reason has a better shot than dismissal for lack of evidence.

[–] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

With Joe stepping down and a surge of support for Kamala, is there a point where the Supreme Court has to accept they’re not winning this time and switch to clean house of people who overplayed their hand?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 30 points 2 months ago (2 children)

What? No, definitely not. They're appointed for life and don't have to give a shit about anything Kamala could possibly do.

(Well, short of using the immunity they gave Trump to Seal Team Six them, I guess, but no Democrat is likely to do that and they know it.)

[–] Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

no Democrat is likely to do that

Honestly this is what pisses me off.

When an opponent who literally wants you or yours dead hands you a gun, shoot them with it. Because if you don't shoot, they will.

Republicans have handed democrats so many tools over the years they could easily wield against Republicans.... But they don't.

They take the "high road."

The Moral High Road is Filled With Corpses.

[–] ryrybang@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

They don't even need violence. Just an official act that decrees that only 3 specific justices have case voting power. The other six are just non-voting members. Effective immediately.

[–] doughless@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If Democrats are ever lucky enough to get 2/3rds of the Senate (and 51% of the House), at that point the Supreme Court might start to think twice about their decisions.

Edit: unfortunately unlikely, though

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Grossly unlikely. We're likely to see the country continue to consolidate most of the population into a few states. We could be seeing a situation in the next few cycles where it's outright impossible for Democrats to win the senate while blowing out the House and Presidential vote.

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Gerrymandering has made it impossible to "blow out" the House too.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That only goes so far, and it's slowly being dismantled.

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

That's optimistic. It's a constant battle.