this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
229 points (99.1% liked)

politics

20722 readers
3432 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
 

The court currently has a 6-3 conservative supermajority, but both Barrett and Roberts have at times broken ranks and voted with the court's liberal wing in rulings that have infuriated the MAGA base.

The high court handed the U.S. president a significant setback when it ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration must abide by a lower court order to unfreeze $2 billion in foreign aid.

The aid was blocked after Trump signed an executive action his first day in office ordering the funding freeze while his administration scoured U.S. spending for what Trump and his allies characterize as "waste, fraud and abuse."

A lower court judge subsequently ordered the administration to unblock the aid in response to a lawsuit filed by nonprofit organizations in connection to the Trump administration's freezing of foreign assistance through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department.

In a 5-4 ruling on Wednesday, Barrett and Roberts joined Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson and left in place the ruling by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali.

Mike Cernovich, a longtime conservative activist and Trump supporter, amplified a video of Barrett and Trump interacting during his address to a joint session of Congress.

"She is evil, chosen solely because she checked identity politics boxes," Cernovich wrote. "Another DEI hire. It always ends badly."

Mike Davis, a former law clerk for Gorsuch and the former chief nominations counsel for Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, didn't name Barrett directly but echoed Cernovich's criticisms of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which Trump has dismantled across the federal government.

He wrote on X: "President Trump will pick even more bold and fearless judges in his second term. Extreme vetting. No DEI. No missteps."

top 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Well, the teabaggers "aka, 'maga'" are fucking crazy, too, so....they should be ignored at every opportunity.

[–] caboose2006@lemm.ee 50 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

So Barrett is DEI for voting against Trump. But Roberts is fine.

[–] VubDapple@real.lemmy.fan 20 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Roberts is a white male. Barrett is just a woman.

[–] caboose2006@lemm.ee 8 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh. So it's a sexist (and racist) dog whistle.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 hours ago

No, just a whistle. Everyone can clearly hear it.

[–] xyzzy@lemm.ee 53 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

How can 40% of this country go this fucking cross-eyed cave man without stopping to take a breath once in a while

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 24 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

You still haven’t accepted how profoundly stupid republicans-at-large really are.

[–] xyzzy@lemm.ee 7 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

It's more about their unlimited berserker energy

[–] formulaBonk@lemm.ee 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Yeah but you can’t use that energy if you’re intellectually consistent. Then again that requires an intellect in the first place and conservatives only have parroting of other dumb people’s words without a hint of understanding.

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 168 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

“She is evil, chosen solely because she checked identity politics boxes,” Cernovich wrote. “Another DEI hire. It always ends badly.”

She was DEI hired by your guy, motherfucker.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Also, shouldn't he be in prison?

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 36 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

She was a Christian woman hire. Double DEI!

[–] Nasan@sopuli.xyz 16 points 18 hours ago

(Relatively) young Christian woman hire. Triple DEI, no erasees.

[–] Lyrl@lemm.ee 31 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Both Roberts and Barrett joined the liberal block on this vote, and as a 5-4 ruling both of them were required to get to a majority. That only Barrett is getting social media energy over it says something.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 hours ago

That only Barrett is getting social media energy over it says something.

That there is no such thing as being "one of the good ones". If you are not a rich white male they will turn on you, it's just a matter of time.

[–] Maeve@midwest.social 46 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

They didn't say anything about Thomas being a dei hire.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 29 points 21 hours ago

He's never handed them a loss. Weird coincidence.

[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 44 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (3 children)

I think she was there to dismantle Roe. High odds you can count on Heritage loyalty.

Working class should be a bit more at ease about this. Voting to maintain the status quo of paying people who have already performed work under contract is a very good thing.

Women and reproduction are toast with this one, but workers might be ok. Or I’m scrabbling around in the dark looking for any spark of light.

This decision should have been unanimous. Paying people for work completed should simply be a given. Or why bother?

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 7 hours ago

Voting to maintain the status quo of paying people who have already performed work under contract is a very good thing.

I was kind of surprised that Gorsuch ruled against... Isn't he the one who ruled in favor of upholding super old treaties with Native Americans? What are those if not contracts?

[–] formulaBonk@lemm.ee 3 points 8 hours ago

The only thing that should come out of not paying for fair labor should be guillotines

[–] glitch1985@lemmy.world 17 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Paying people for work completed should simply be a given.

I see you don't know much about the current president of the US. Why pay people when you can simply have them do the work and then keep the money yourself?

[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 2 points 7 hours ago

Pretty much Bezos’ philosophy, more or less. Literal sweat shop in those places to fund his yachts and penis rockets.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 35 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

You know what would be awesome... if Trump threw a temper tantrum and packed the Supreme Court.

At this point it'd just shred the last remnants of legitimacy that Roberts is desperately trying to cling to.

It'd also suck, of course, but it's going to suck regardless.

[–] NJSpradlin@lemmy.world 30 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I wouldn’t put it past him. Other presidents stuck by norms instead of flexing/reaching for power outside of the strict reading of their position. Trump 2.0 gives two shits; if the SCOTUS rebuffs him? WTF wouldn’t he delegitimize them by forcing Congress to accept his stooges as he packs the court. Where’s that hair dye guy? Or that hack judge from Florida? Or any of his lawyers the last 10 years.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 22 points 23 hours ago

By hack judge from Florida I assume you mean Aileen Cannon the person voted by me to be most deserving of being struck by lighting two years running.

I'm sure he'd love to get her on the court and I'd fucking hate it.

[–] DigitalDruid@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 20 hours ago

the monkeys paw curls and your new justices are MTG, Matt Gaetz and the trump children.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

This is one thing the Democrats actually have the power to block. They can't filibuster court appointments but they can filibuster attempts to expand the court and attempts to impeach a court justice. That means unless one of them dies, Trump can't touch the court.

[–] oyo@lemm.ee 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Until the Republicans change the filibuster rule 5 minutes later.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

TBH they could. They could change that rule right now, they've got 52 without a caucus. They've displayed the party unity in the past needed to do some pretty horrible stuff if they wanted to.

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world -1 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

I don't think SCOTUS would dilute their own power by seating more judges if there wasn't a Congressional Act to legally change the size of the court, which is set by federal law.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 7 hours ago

Congress is also supposed to control the purse strings, and yet...

These motherfuckers would create their own Supreme Court, and just go with whatever they say. Who's going to stop them?

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

You mean the Congress that is proposing putting Trump in the $100 bill?

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

I didnt say I think Congress wouldn't do it. The SCOTUS would have no choice if Congress does it properly, albeit for the wrong reason. But we've already seen SCOTUS rule against Trump this term. So I don't think they'd go along with weakening the strength of their individual vote on the bench without Congress doing it properly.

[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 17 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

And I hope the backlash she receives encourages her to make the right decision more often. Not saying it will, just that I hope so. Some "fuck you" energy would be appreciated.

I'm being entirely too optimistic here, but it's the only thing keeping me sane.

[–] Today@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago

My first thought too - when she sees the kooks, will she remember that she was hired because she is/was one?

Haha wow, insane people run our country now, cool cool cool cool cool