this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2025
553 points (99.3% liked)

politics

26764 readers
2395 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
 

I think she might be going a little deaf. Anytime anyone mentions the files she just keeps asking “Pardon Me?"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 5 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

The problem is that you have a majority on the Supreme Court that are blatantly abusing their power and ignoring the law when it advances their side's agenda, including just declaring the president to be above the law.

This would be the kind of thing that should lead to impeachment, but that requires a supermajority in the senate (because you don't want whichever party has a majority to be able to easily abuse the impeachment process) but that won't happen because every single republican with even a hint of integrity has been pushed out by Trump over the past decade. And even if there were Republicans that weren't entirely corrupt, dismantling your own Supreme Court majority would be a tough sell politically. And even if they did remove the existing justices, it would just mean that Trump would get to appoint new ones that would be much worse and with many more years ahead of them.

And with Trump filling the executive branch with the worst scumbags he can find, chosen specifically for their willingness to be loyal sycophants who won't let ethics or laws get in the way of doing his bidding, you aren't going to get any help there. Again, this is exactly why the senate has to approve appointments but they are also scumbags right now. And for the same reason, the impeachment that should be happening for basically every member of this administration are not coming.

All that being said, there is resistance coming from both the executive and judicial branches. This administration has been firing people illegally in part because it can't get them to do the illegal shit they want them to do. And those illegal actions and the related illegal firings have been taken to court and the administration has lost nearly 95% off the time. Sometimes the Supreme Court has stepped in to bail them out, but in most cases the ruling stands and the administration has eventually complied.

All of which is to say that, while there are many flaws both big and small in the American system, it isn't the system itself that is at fault here, it's the elected officials and the corrupt assholes they appointed. There is no system that will work when every branch of government is in the hands of people who ignore their ethical and legal obligations.

[–] falseWhite@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (4 children)

So it is the system's fault for allowing this. Why not make the system so that the president or the ruling party alone cannot appoint the supreme court justices.

I mean I only spent 5 minutes thinking about this, but why not make the appointments work the same way they vote for laws? I.e. both parties, not individuals, have to vote and get a majority to appoint, and only in emergency situations could anyone appoint a justice without a vote.

The same should be done for appointing the highest attorneys in the country.

How fucking stupid is it to allow the ruling party to control the justice system. It's just asking to be abused by fascists.

Law should be politically impartial.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 6 points 14 hours ago

No system will long survive players acting in bad faith. There's no system you can come up with that is immune to conservatives and capitalists fucking with it. It might take them years, but they will never stop. They are the worst people on earth. If you could thanos-snap away conservatives, the world would become a better place overnight. Every problem we're facing is either their fault, or made worse by them.

And we're never going to get rid of conservatives. There are always going to be shitty humans who believe their in-group needs to be protected and the out-group needs to be bound. Shitty, scared, little shit bags that will blame brown people or queers or whatever, anything, so they can think down familiar paths and avoid any hard introspection.

So I don't know. You don't stop building a home because the elements are always trying to tear it down. But you can't punch the wind in the fucking throat so hard they cry and vomit at the same time, so maybe it's not quite the same as a maga hat.

[–] erin@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 10 hours ago

Political impartiality is a myth. All actors have motives and biases. We should strive to build a robust system that has the fail-safes to prevent bad actors from doing things like:

  • Gerrymandering districts to disenfranchise their political opponents
  • Appointing political allies to lifelong terms controlling the justice system
  • Allowing corporate money into politics and the treatment of corporations as people
  • Using pardons for cronyism

A fair system is not an apolitical one, it is a very political one, with strong convictions and ideals about the rights of its citizens, such that they are unalienable.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

We already require the President and Senate to agree to appoint a Justice. The problem there is the Senate gives each state equal representation with no regard to their population (this has been an issue since before the country was a country) and there's absolutely no way that enough rural states are going to vote to change that system.

[–] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

So it is the system’s fault for allowing this. Why not make the system so that the president or the ruling party alone cannot appoint the supreme court justices.

The president can nominate anyone, but they have to be approved by the senate. Every justice we had made it through that process, most before they scrapped the filibuster.

I mean I only spent 5 minutes thinking about this, but why not make the appointments work the same way they vote for laws? I.e. both parties, not individuals, have to vote and get a majority to appoint, and only in emergency situations could anyone appoint a justice without a vote.

The same should be done for appointing the highest attorneys in the country.

Legislation doesn't have to have support from both parties either. The filibuster rule makes it possible for a minority party to hold up certain things, but there is no requirement that anything be supported by both parties.

And even if we did have a system where a majority of both parties was required to approve a judicial appointment or attorney, that would just break the system even more. It would give a veto to the Republicans for every appointment regardless of which party is in the majority and they would gladly leave half the government vacant when they don't hold the white house, or make such extreme demands that it wouldn't matter which party the president belongs to. This would just give the most extreme group more power to grind the government to a halt and hold the whole system hostage.

How fucking stupid is it to allow the ruling party to control the justice system. It’s just asking to be abused by fascists.

Law should be politically impartial.

Yes, they should be. Unfortunately, those laws can only be written, enacted, interpreted, administered and enforced by people. Laws have no power on their own. And we have to have a process for determining who is in a position to oversee those laws. Some of those people are elected. Some are appointed. Some are hired or promoted independently within organizations that answer to elected and/or appointed officials. And there is necessarily a trade off when balancing power between elected officials (who are going to be the most politicized but also the ones who are answerable to the people directly) and those who are more independent (who can be less vulnerable to momentary political currents but also never have to answer to the general public).

As I said, there are many flaws in the American system, some of which are very big. But we also have numerous mechanisms that should prevent situations like this. The problem is they all require someone to do their fucking job and push back. Many of those furthest removed from electoral politics have been doing a lot to uphold legal and ethical standards. But when the elected officials and their appointees at the highest levels are either actively undermining the law or simply failing to do their duty to defend the law, it isn't the law that's at fault.

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

The problem is that you have a majority on the Supreme Court

That's not a requirement for impeachment and removal. That's an independent power of Congress.

[–] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

If only I'd posted more than one sentence, maybe I could have addressed the issue of impeachment... even though the comment I was responding to specifically mentioned the legal system, and the point I was making was about how no legal safety mechanism can function when the people in charge of it are corrupt, which is a problem when the people at the top in all the branches of government are corrupt.