this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2025
288 points (99.0% liked)

politics

24989 readers
2435 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
 

As the supreme court upends precedent again and again, the liberal justices reveal the divisions within the legal body

On Friday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered an acidic sermon against the court’s 6-3 decision to end lower courts’ practice of issuing nationwide injunctions to block federal executive orders, reading her dissent directly from the bench in a move meant to highlight its importance.

“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” states Sotomayor’s dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown-Jackson. “Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] msprout@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago (4 children)

One thing I have observed about my fellow Usonians is that we all seem to have this strange, misplaced trust that eventually, ONE of our previous institutions will save us.

People crow about how the 2nd amendment will be what helps us prevent tyranny, but also seem to completely gloss over the fact that our police and military operate on an entirely different power level than citizens do. I have watched the US military terrorize people in Afghanistan and Pakistan for 20 years. Why do we think we would do any better against it?

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Its the dying gasp of American Exceptionalism, at this point.

Ultra right wing types? My guns will save me!

No they fucking won't, not if big daddy government decides to fuck you specifically, they have more people, more ammo, more guns, armored personel carriers and astonishingly better intel than you do.

Liberals? The law will function and stop this! The system will hold!

Ahem, obviously false.

Both of these are ultimately aspects of American society that are drilled into our heads as being exceptional, unique, and basically better than anywhere else on Earth.

Again, obviously false, in its totality, as basically every aspect of that system is now totally unravelling.

We are not facing a crisis, as if its in the future tense.

We have been in the crisis since Jan 6th....

Our entire legal system is now utterly arbitrary.

This ruling means that Trump can issue an EO to break any law, and no judge can immediately order it stop.... it all has to be drawn out in court for years, by which time, the Executive Branch will just have done whatever the fuck it wanted to.

Even if a case is won after some time... and concludes that agents of the Executive Branch did actually break laws, Trump can pardon all of them instantly.

Trump has just effectively done a line item veto on the 14th Amendment.

He can now do that with any other Amendment or law as well.

The law is dead.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The US military lost against the resistance in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan...

There is no way they would win against a properly organized resistance in the US either.

Problem is people thinking that the guns themselves would safe them from Tyranny, when it is using the guns against the tyrants that is protecting them.

[–] msprout@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You are glossing over how many casualties that the US endured compared to Iraqis or Afghans. Sure, the Taliban still exists nominally, but Afghanistan endured at least 46,000 civilian deaths, with Iraq enduring at least 100,000 — the US tallied less than 8,000 deaths total.

What happened is that we basically used their countries as a sandbox to maintain our war readiness and funnel money into the pockets of the personal friends of Dick Cheney and his various warhawk confidantes. It was, at its most generous, a massacre, which is what civilian resistance will be, too.

All of this mental Rambo work is paralyzing people from taking any action at all as they retreat inwards and wait for doomsday. It is making us give up on diplomacy sooner.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 3 points 1 month ago

Things cannot go without casualties. But the more people stand up to fight, the less casualties there will be as the prospect of "crushing" the resistance dwindles from the start.

And people who larp 2A should get a grip that if they claim the armed resistance, they have to take what comes with it.

On the other hand you see a lot of people still in their liberal fairytale land, where they think that if shit starts delivering the suspected instigator and cozying up with the police would help them defeat fascism. See various posts in the 50501 community.

Lets be real about it. Fighting as an armed resistance means people will be killed. Not fighting will lead to being killed at much larger scale, as the killers reign freely.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Partly because hopefully not all of the military will fall in line to fight their own countrymen. But then we are seeing what is happening in LA...