politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'm expecting that the corrupt and compromised Supreme Court is going to refuse to hear anything more on all of these "temporary" rulings they're issuing, which will effectively make them permanent.
Yeah, but it also gives him the convenient ability to undo that ruling If a Democrat were ever to be elected, which, granted, is looking less and less likely.
The ruling means that the chair is fired but the law suit over the firing will continue and if they win the lawsuit they will be reinstated otherwise they stay fired.
That means they effectively allowed the firing. It's not like people can stand around indefinitely waiting for the courts nor can the agency.
Its letting Trump get what he wants without actually needing to make a real judgment on the legality. At this point the law seems to barely mean anything.
Right, but in reference to "undoing the ruling" later, there is a misconception of what this ruling is. It's quite common for a higher court to either enjoin or not enjoin something while a lawsuit over that thing makes its way through the courts. That's all this is. It's not the end of her fight, her case will move forward. And the Trump admin has already lost cases like this. It sucks for her personally, and we all agree the ruling should have been that she will stay in her position until the suit has been ruled on, but it's not at all an unusual legal maneuver.
This has been the playbook of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court to undermine our democracy. Lower courts have consistently been applying injunctions/stays that would minimize disruptions and/or infringements on rights, then the Supreme Court overturn those injunctions/stays without providing a reason (cause usually there isn't a good one). This gives the administration the win becuase by the time the law might catch up the damage is done.
A great example is the administration's attempt to kill certain agencies. The executive does not have the power to do so, but by waiting around and kneecaping the agencies, the administration gets what it wants.
Whats more obvious is that the court is obviously afraid to come out and provide reasoning for its decisions. It's all closed door-like rulings because there isn't much good legal reasoning or defense.