this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2025
783 points (99.4% liked)

politics

20664 readers
3666 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
 

Summary

The Democratic National Committee and two other party committees have sued Trump over Executive Order 14215, which claims authority to seize control of the Federal Elections Commission.

The lawsuit argues this violates federal law and threatens free elections.

The order also claims power over other agencies including the SEC, FTC, and NLRB.

Democrats contend this executive overreach contradicts constitutional principles and a century of Supreme Court precedent upholding Congress's authority to insulate certain agencies from presidential control.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There is no need for judges to target anyone yet, because the Trump admin hasn't been found in contempt.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Do you not comprehend that I no longer feel any sense of hope from what our justice system could or might do in the future, since it has utterly failed to impede him in any substantive way to date? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying it is meaningless given what has happened to him so far (no substantive impact) until something different happens (substantive impact).

Because so far, he seems to be gaming things really well, and I see no reason to think that will change.

I (and all of us) waited for what our justice system could do for four years. And it did nothing that mattered. I say again:

So, you’ll forgive me if I’ll wait until I hear about bank accounts being drained and that it has any measurable impact on the rate of progress at https://www.project2025.observer/ before I lull myself back into to believing Trump is in any way not untouchable.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Trump has lost several court cases already, and many are just getting started. For example, today Cathy Harris was reinstated to the Merit Systems Protection Board.

If you expect the judicial system to broadly restore the status quo under Biden, then you're probably going to be disappointed. Any victories will be on a case-by-case basis. That's literally how the judicial system operates.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Trump has lost several court cases already, and many are just getting started.

I feel we define consequences differently.

If you expect the judicial system to broadly restore the status quo under Biden

I expected the judicial system to have him in prison, or have made a credible attempt at such, before his cultists could re-elect him. That's why nothing about what it might do in the future has meaning to me. When it does something that matters, that will be fantastic. I hope I'm alive to see it.

Right now we're coming up on 5 years of fluff and Trump pulling change out of his couch cushions then replenishing it with NFTs, gold shoes, and other grift.

So all these assurances ring hollow if I'm to take them as any indication that he won't be able to continue raw dogging the US and the world until he gets sick of it or until arteriosclerosis finally does us all a favor.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Nobody promised Trump would end up in prison. There was a very good chance that a cultist on his jury would have refused to convict. Or he might have been found guilty only on lesser charges and ended up paying a fine. Juries are unpredictable and often disappointing, from OJ Simpson to Kyle Rittenhouse.

It sounds like you expected the judicial system to do what voters failed to do. But the judicial system can't stop Trump from being elected president. That was our responsibility as voters. Don't blame judges when they can't clean up our mess.