politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:

- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That doesn’t sound like an abuse of checks and balances to me, to be honest. This is exactly how the system is designed. They still need a majority to pass anything.
Flip the script for a moment; imagine we had ultra right wing judges who make insane judgements. Is it not the whole point of checks and balances for the legislative and executive branches to be able to exert some control over the judiciary branch provided they have an appropriate majority?
I don’t agree with Johnson, he’s a cunt, but this doesn’t seem like abuse per se, rather exactly how the system was designed. I’m not worried about it because they don’t have the votes.
If you have ultra right wing judges making insane judgements you impeach them, not dismantle an entire branch of government. This is not "how the system was designed" and if you think that, reread the constitution. Even if they don't have the votes, the fact that its being suggested should be setting off red alert alarms about the next stage that the Rs are aiming to put into motion.
What insane judgements? I don't think this is a very good example given his orders have ignored laws outright. The rendition thing is basic due process. Its from right wing judges enforcing law. It is by no means ultra left wing judges making insane judgements. I just don't think this example you are giving is apt to the current condition.
"gestures at the 5th circuit"
again its not apt to the situation in that its not ultra leftist making judgements against trump its right wing judges. at least in the case of the renditions. All the same if we are just talking completely unrelated and issue with the courts overall being to bias its not a proper way to deal with it by defunding the whole court system any more than you remove congress or the office of presidency to deal with something. There is processes to remove individuals from any of the branches and that is a within the system, appropriate process. Removing the system is anti system so would be appropriate for a revolutionary this is more usurper activity. That is the idea of taking power from within by removing it. Maybe there is a better word.
sry if I wasn't clear. what Johnson is trying to do is insane. I was just pointing to the 5th circuit that had been throwing out insane rulings and the judge every crazy gop team shops for.
That's not what's going on here. The courts are standing up for the law. The President is trying to use the congress as a weapon to ensure the courts cannot force him to follow the law. It's tyranny and we must not accept it.