this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
157 points (100.0% liked)

politics

20671 readers
4922 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IHeartBadCode@fedia.io 41 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Does a single district court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic 'No,' but a majority of this court apparently thinks otherwise

— Justice Alito's dissent

The answer is "FUCKING YES". The Court is a co-equal branch to the President and Congress. The Courts have just as much right indicating that the President must uphold contractual obligations as Congress has the power to pass a budget and the President to distribute that funding to the States.

Yes, yes, FUCKING YES, the Courts have this power. The "CHECK" if there is to be one is for Congress to rescind the funding by law. THAT'S FUCKING CHECK DIPSHIT!!! It's not unchecked, if Congress passes a law indicating that the contracts are pulled, then ta-da, what the Judge said is moot. That's the FUCKING CHECK!!

Goddamn it, I hate it when these Justices say stupid shit because of their fucking bias and love of Trump's cock. Just what a fucking moronic statement by Alito. If the Government wants to cancel contracts, Congress has to grant that power. That's the check on the President. If the President fucking cancels contracts without that power, the Courts can mandate that the contracts be paid, that's the check on the President. If the President doesn't like what the Courts say, then they can go to Congress for the authority, and that's the check on the Courts.

It's all fucking balanced. What an absolute pile of shit Alito has offered up in this dissent. And what's worse is that he'd be totally complicit to remand to the lower courts had it been Biden pulling this shit. Suddenly the whole "impoundment" issue would manifest for the Courts.

What an absolute fucking naked ass corrupt pile of horse shit that dissent is. Goddamn, there is zero legitimacy left in that sack of shit that calls itself Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. "UNCHECKED POWER" my fucking ass. What complete horse shit. This fucking country is a goddamn failure.

[–] sfxrlz@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 12 hours ago

I mean I always wondered about some of their integrity, especially when judge Thomas was shown to have accepted presents repeatedly and „failed to disclose them“ and nothing really happened.

load more comments (1 replies)