this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2026
114 points (97.5% liked)

politics

29890 readers
2059 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Sharing a stage, Supreme Court Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Brett Kavanaugh sparred Monday over the many emergency orders the court has issued allowing Donald Trump to move ahead with key parts of his agenda.

The issue in emergency appeals is whether a policy that has been challenged in court should be allowed to take effect while a legal case that could last for years continues.

Jackson, a frequent dissenter from the emergency orders, said Kavanaugh and the other conservatives who repeatedly sided with Trump last year were not serving the court or the country well.

“The administration is making new policy ... and then insisting the new policy take effect immediately, before the challenge is decided. This uptick in the court’s willingness to get involved in cases on the emergency docket is a real unfortunate problem,” Jackson said to loud applause.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] homes@piefed.world 18 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Here’s an idea: could they all just die?

[–] MareOfNights@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

No please don't, then Trump gets to pick 9 new ones.

[–] homes@piefed.world 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I’d be very happy if he also died

Immediately

[–] zwerg@feddit.org 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Then Vance gets to pick 9. Careful what you wish for, we are firmly in monkey paw territory...

[–] CarnivorousCouch@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's a rule that a president or acting president can't pick any SCOTUS judges in the last year of their term, or the year before that, or either of the preceding two years.

[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

Rules aren’t law, and can be changed. This was even broken when it was a rule by GOP.

[–] pressedhams@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Don’t worry. We all will one day.

[–] homes@piefed.world 3 points 2 months ago

The sooner the better

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Remember when Biden could have expanded the supreme court but just sat there being old getting older for 4 years?

[–] CptBread@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That wouldn't have helped with today's issues unless Democrats managed to stay in power. As Trump would just have expanded the court again...

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

If he created a majority in the supreme court, we would t have had 0 levers of power.

[–] lama@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

To be fair he also had Joe Manchin threatening to block it. Though what I don't understand is why they didn't pressure him to fall in line. (Insert controlled opposition theory here)

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'll take the "DEI Hire" over the "DUI Hire" any day.

[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

I like beer