this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2025
282 points (99.6% liked)

politics

26116 readers
2576 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 also rebuffed the administration’s argument that judges have no power to review the president’s decisions to federalize the National Guard.

A federal appeals court has extended an order blocking Donald Trump from deploying National Guard troops in Chicago, saying the administration is unable to show that there is an organized rebellion nor that officials are otherwise unable to uphold law and order in the city.

The ruling on Thursday from a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals extends a previous order that allowed Trump to federalize certain National Guard troops but blocked him from deploying troops in the city.

The panel — which consisted of a Trump appointee, an Obama appointee and a George H. W. Bush appointee — also rejected the administration’s argument that federal courts have no power to review a president’s underlying determinations in deciding to federalize troops. That question of judicial authority has cropped up in several similar lawsuits challenging deployments in Democrat-run cities.

top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 42 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Supreme Court shadow docket here we come!

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 12 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Seriously. If the lower court's decision is correct, take your time responding to appeals. The high court of the land showed us using the system to run out the clock on Trump's criminal cases was ok, might as well follow their lead to promote actual justice.

[–] d00phy@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago

Yeah, they’re getting their capes on…

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago

Political opposition is rebellion to Trumps mind

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

#NOKINGS 10/18/25 - Find your local protest: https://www.nokings.org/#map