this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
165 points (93.2% liked)

politics

19144 readers
3526 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hismama@lemmy.world -5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I don't see the Supreme Court upholding even Colorado's ruling. Trump has gained more political steam with this. He has his angle that the "Dems are actively not being democratic". Not that I agree with any of that message.

There's no way he'd win in California regardless. Makes no sense to attempt it there.

[–] Kalysta@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

No way this supreme court upholds that ruling. Which pisses me off even more that Biden refused to stack the court when he had the chance

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

It would take an act of Congress to alter the Judicial Act of 1969, which sets the current size of the Supreme Court.

Democrats consider the preservation of the filibuster to be more important.

[–] Hismama@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Yes I fear it is just misleading hope. Another thread is hoping Dean Phillips can upset a repeat of 2020 Biden v Trump. Who knows, we'll see.

At least Breyer was replaced by Jackson. The Senate is as much to blame as well.

[–] LegendofDragoon@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I mean that's the message he'll spin for sure, but the Colorado suit was brought to the courts by Republicans trying to remove Trump from the ballot.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

He'll just say theyre RINOs that are agents of the democrats.

[–] ganksy@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why would supreme Court weigh in on states rights to run their elections?

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Because the Colorado ruling was based on an analysis and interpretation of the US Constitution. SCOTUS is the court of last resort in such matters.