this post was submitted on 11 May 2026
476 points (99.4% liked)

politics

29722 readers
3224 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
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

the EU is much better than the US of today

I would not have said that ten years ago, when Obama was President of the US and Berlusconi was PM of Italy. I doubt anyone will be saying that in the UK, once Keir Starmer hands the gavel over to Nigel Farrage or in France when Emmanuel Macron concedes defeat to Marie LePenn.

Each region has its own judiciary, congress, and executive. These three branches place justices onto the national court.

Nothing in this plan prevents the current composition of court judges from being seated.

This combined with the concept of regions, makes it much harder for any one voice to dominate the national court.

The court already consists of nine supreme court justices. While I'm all for court-packing, I still don't see anyone explaining why the next four or eight or fifty SCOTUS judges won't all be Federalist Society hacks of ACB caliber.

Why do I want Texas, Florida, Idaho, and Maine to have a louder voice in dictating who issues the final decision on the interpretation of legal statutes? How does regionalization help, when so many regions in the US fucking suck shit.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 points 1 hour ago

By "region", I mean the continental US divided into three huge territories, with the fourth region being comprised of exterior holdings like Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, military bases, embassies, and so forth. That fourth territory is basically a diplomatic and trade master of the union, to help compensate for the lack of physical land.

The purpose of the national court, congress, and executive is to coordinate the things that the regions agree on, such as the highway system, weather stations, sharing disaster teams, free movement of citizens, ect. Anything they can't really agree on, such as some laws, are restrained to their own territories. Once a law or the like has become well established, the national bodies may formalize it into a general rule for the nation.

Each region essentially becomes a laboratory of sorts, where rights, policies, and implementation can be demonstrated. If a region is much improved by an idea, the other regions would want to adopt them in order to remain relevant. People will move away from badly governed regions, draining those places of influence. That in turn gives regions incentives to compete.

0000

Anyhow, as to why Florida and company should have a voice: Because they are people, and the people within those places will change. California was once a place of Native Americans, the Spanish, then Mexicans, now Americans, and may become something different in the future.

Considering that Florida is home to many aged boomers, it is pretty likely that they will begin keeling over at some point. That will be a major source of change in the types of Floridians who live there.