this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
232 points (95.7% liked)

politics

23089 readers
3498 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
all 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 178 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Justice Samuel Alito has slammed the Supreme Court for acting “literally in the middle of the night”

Which is an appropriate response when the Trump administration also illegally deports immigrants in the middle of the night.

[–] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Yeah, the court rushed their decision specifically because they expected Alito to drag his feet and stall as long as possible. Alito was going to stall through the Easter weekend, which would give the jackboots time to rush the deportations. And the court has learned that Trump is using the deportations as a way to circumvent the law; If the deportees out of the ICE’s hands, then ICE can just shrug and go “talk to Venezuela about it” when ordered to give the deportees due process. So the SCOTUS 100% expected a massive surge of deportations over the weekend while Alito was stalling with writing his dissent.

In emergency orders, the justices don’t even need to say which way they voted. But Alito did anyways, specifically because he expected them to wait for his dissent before they announced the ruling. The fact that they didn’t wait (and Alito had to hurriedly shove the first draft of his dissent in) means that all seven justices who pushed it through were tired of putting up with his shit. To be clear, the rush was a giant “fuck you. We see what you’re doing; you’re not slick” to Alito specifically.

[–] KbSez@piefed.social 35 points 2 days ago

Old nazi is angry the law is obeyed and respected over his desire to punish non-white people like they should be.

[–] twistypencil@lemmy.world 64 points 2 days ago (2 children)

He didn't at all slam anything. He came up with a weak defense that had nothing. He had 24 hours to do it, and he knows how to do a defense. This was show, nothing more

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

Alito doesn't write defenses or arguments. He writes justifications for the outcomes that his neo-pharisee dominionist buddies would most prefer.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

*his clerks know how to do a defense.

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 38 points 2 days ago (1 children)

“Justice” Alito can fuck off and die. Slowly, painfully.

[–] Roundeyegweilo@lemm.ee 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'd rather is was quickly and painfully. But not too quickly. I'd hate for Trump to just replace him with another sycophant.

[–] tehn00bi@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

He’d let the Federalist Society pick whoever is the most willing to serve the Christian right cabal.

[–] MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 71 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What kind of Supreme Court justice doesn’t believe in due process?

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 87 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, for damn sure

[–] Gregg@lemm.ee 21 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Clarence Thomas would rather show porn to his colleagues and joke about people putting pubes on his Coke can. Anyone who has a problem with that is a woke leftist.

[–] SarcasticMan@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

The one they pay not to.

[–] b161@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 day ago

May Alito’s skin begin spontaneously peeling away from his flesh.

[–] Helvetica@sh.itjust.works 28 points 2 days ago

Translation:

Noooo! We're supposed to be doing fascism and enabling a Trump dictatorship. We have the majority guys! Why????

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 48 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I hope he chokes on a hamburger and dies. These people didn't do jackshit to be treated like this, and he just wants to capitulate to fucking fascists. Fuck this guy.

[–] Mooseford@lemmy.today 5 points 2 days ago

It's not capitulation if you are one.

[–] Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] classic@fedia.io 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Slam is really having a moment in news headlines

[–] Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It drives me nuts so I've been commenting slam on every post I happen to come across, its like 4-5 per day. I'm trying to spread awareness of slam fatigue. On the bright side I saw the word "blasts" used today which I don't actually mind! its a bit more interesting. Theres just something about the word slam and how often its used that grinds my gears I can't explain it! I wish they'd be more creative like "throws a haymaker!" or "RKO'd" or "falcon punches".

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Slam? Should have gone for the single leg. Amateure!

[–] Gregg@lemm.ee 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I’m ready for one of our reps to drop The DDT in the main House chamber. Slams are so Bruno Sammartino.

[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago

Why would anyone need due process? Might as well shut down judicial system and just start hanging folks or put them up on the wall handmaid style.

[–] msmc101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 2 days ago

fuckin collaborator, trying to rot the judiciary branch from the inside out

So, putting that fascist shitbag justice’s dissent in context: this is the rest of the story

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 6 points 2 days ago

As one Lord Kelvin once said: K.

[–] Archangel1313@lemm.ee 5 points 2 days ago

Sounds like there's nothing to dissent, here. They already ruled that detainees should be given a chance to dispute their deportation, in court. This ruling just makes sure that Trump gives them that chance.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 2 days ago

Im waiting for the article were clarence thomas slams the supreme court for blocking trumps eventual order to ban mixed race marriages if they did block it in that case.

[–] Nay@feddit.nl 1 points 2 days ago