this post was submitted on 19 May 2026
200 points (95.5% liked)

politics

29815 readers
2674 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
all 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Tedesche@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Can someone please explain to me the logic behind allowing states to redistribute their districts every few years? The problem isn’t that the GOP redistricts in a way to oppress black voters or that the Dems redistrict to support them, it’s that we allow these shenanigans at all. Why are we allowed to have these battles in the first place? There has to be a better solution.

[–] berno@lemmy.world 15 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Imagine if RBG retired, DWS and HRC didn't cheat the primaries in 2016, and Harris didn't get coronated as candidate in 2024.

The Democrats make their own shitty problems and get in their own way every cycle and wonder why they keep losing to carnival barkers like Trump.

It's entirely their fault we are in the situation we're in now.

[–] pigup@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

As designed

[–] lando55@lemmy.zip 10 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

For sure they're to blame, but the situation would be substantially less shitty if the right weren't literally hitler

[–] sportsjorts@lemmy.zip 9 points 10 hours ago

Yeah. I feel like it’s really important to point out just how fucking stupid Dem leadership is, and it feels like it goes without saying, but the GOP are fucking pedophile Nazis and they suck at everything expect being stupid ass pedophile Nazis that are destroying the U.S.

Fuck the Guardians Of Pedophiles.

[–] axexrx@lemmy.world 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Idk. I dont think expanding and accepting the corrupt scrotus judges as equal to the others is enough.

I think the argument needs to be made that the words of the constitution "shall serve on good behavior" means litterally that, and that therefore all the current R appointees abdicated their positions long ago and their rulings are invalid.

When the judges try to rule that they are still judges and that they say it takes impeachment, it should be pointed out that, as regular citizens, they A, have to argue that in court as a plaintif, and that B, attempting to rule on a standard they directly benefit from is intrinsically corrupt behavior that constitutes having quit according to the exact words of the constitution.

[–] ViceroTempus@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

We honestly should organize as a citizenry, and encourage them to abdicate.

[–] kylie_kraft@lemmy.world 86 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

I would rather see them impeach Alito and Thomas for blatant corruption, but neither will ever happen, so

[–] paranoid@lemmy.world 9 points 15 hours ago

I agree completely, but the next best thing is making them irrelevant

[–] cadekat@pawb.social 13 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

What's the process for impeaching a US supreme court justice?

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 29 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Same as any other office holder. Impeach in the house, convict in the Senate.

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 11 points 12 hours ago

Worth knowing:

Unlike other impeachable offices, SCOTUS judges serve for an unlimited term that is subject to an undefined "during good behavior" rule.

A future administration with sufficient votes to reform SCOTUS can and should take this to impose a meaningful code of conduct on judges that can boot them from the bench without needing the senate to go through a political process.

[–] bigfish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 16 hours ago

Basically the same as presidents and other political officers iirc

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 14 hours ago

Throw them in prison.

Making the system even larger is stupid. Make accountability instead.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 21 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Speaking to Emerge, Harris raised the idea of Supreme Court reform “including the notion of expanding the court.”

That's coming out swinging? Maybe if she releases a signed public statement saying she supports court expansion and if she thinks an un-filibuster-able bill would be an appropriate way to do so regardless of what the Senate Parliamentarian says I'd believe it, but this seems so vague it's meaningless.

[–] BadmanDan@lemmy.world 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

You don’t decide, the black votes in the south will decide.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Not after the recent SCOTUS ruling, they won't!

spoiler


(Yes, I'm aware gerrymandering doesn't apply to the presidential election. It's a joke.)

[–] BadmanDan@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, they literally will. It’s a private primary. The DNC literally dosent have to follow that SCOTUS ruling.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

Well, if we're talking literal, there's also the issue that your comment was factually-incorrect and also kinda racist, so maybe you don't wanna go there.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world -1 points 14 hours ago

I thought for sure you’d be a banner-waving Harrisitarian after that article.

(/s, obvs.)

[–] wavebeam@lemmy.world 29 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I get and agree with the pessimism. but if she advocates for this as part of her campaign, along with many other necessary counters to the damage that has been done to our democracy, I support that! I'll prefer someone else for as long as i can, but if she ends up somehow being the nominee I won't be mad that this is part of her platform.

thing is, saying and doing are different things. we desperately need someone who is MORE aggressive at fixing everything that's been broken than Trump has been at destroying.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 points 5 hours ago

You can burn a building down in a day. Building a new one takes somewhat longer.

Which would make you think there would be more checks involved in burning down those metaphorical buildings, but welcome to America.

[–] PagPag@lemmy.world 24 points 16 hours ago

“Comes out swinging”

Aka not doing a single thing about it that matters.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 10 points 15 hours ago

It's true, I'll only vote for a primary candidate who brings this up with a serious plan of action.

But I'd like to go much farther left than Harris. We need systemic reform or we'll never recover from this last (four and a half!) decade(s) of ruinous policy.

[–] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 11 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds like someone is thinking about the 2028 primaries.

If only we had some evidence of whether she actually would support this in the general election, instead of reverting to bland right-acceptable talking points!

[–] MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip 7 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

DNC starting/continuing to play cards against the rising popularity of AOC as a 2028 candidate. "Just how palatable to the progressives and real leftists do we have to make one of our controllable people be to derail a real leftist shifting the inertia of the Democrat base away from us?"

[–] pluge@piefed.social 5 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Oh wow, swinging?!? She's so brave. Surely she'll stick to her guns if she ever gets nominated...right??

ffs get these establishment dems far, far away from the next election.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca -5 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (3 children)

In another binary choice, who would you choose? Another trump, or harm reduction?

(Count the people for whom evolution is confusing)

[–] nednobbins@lemmy.zip 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

That's a false choice.

We don't have to be stuck with Harris as the only alternative to Trump. We could just as easily nominate someone who doesn't suck.

If we have the misfortune of once again being forced to choose between Trump or harm reduction, we will all know it's because the Democratic leadership forced that choice on us. I don't think they would be forgiven for that betrayal.

[–] pluge@piefed.social 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

"just as easily" if and only if the DNC doesn't nuke the progressive option and force the Republican in sheeps clothing to take the nomination

[–] veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 hours ago

They literally can't if you don't let them.

The issue is and always has been, you let them.

[–] noodles@slrpnk.net 7 points 13 hours ago

Definitely her over Trump, but she has to get past the primaries first, and we cannot forget that she ended up being a supremely feckless candidate on all the core voter issues that gave her momentum at the beginning of her abridged campaign.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago

STFU about that until after the primary. It's 100% inappropriate right now.

[–] homes@piefed.world 4 points 14 hours ago

Flashback to everyone telling Hillary to go back into the woods

[–] xSikes@feddit.online 2 points 13 hours ago

So she wants a seat? Sorry but you’re not progressive enough unless you can replace the RV dipshit tomorrow.

[–] EndOfLine@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

From 2021

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-packing-expansion-democratic-bill-13-justices/

Several Democrats in the House and Senate announced plans Wednesday night to introduce a bill to add four more justices to the Supreme Court, which would bring the total number of justices to 13. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi swiftly said 12 hours later that she would not bring the bill to the floor for a vote.

[–] Corvidae@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I see the stamp of religion all over this, but not in a moral sense. Our leaders and journalists work so hard to ignore that elephant in the room.

[–] homes@piefed.world 3 points 14 hours ago

There is nothing moral about religion anyway

[–] DisasterTransport@startrek.website 5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

What do the French call this? L'esprit de l'escalier?

[–] veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 hours ago

I'm not really sure if Mesprit and Escavalier make a good team in doubles...

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 4 points 16 hours ago
[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

Pipe down Kamala. You had your chance in the spotlight and Americans rejected you.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago

This sparks joy

[–] Steve@startrek.website 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
[–] BadmanDan@lemmy.world -4 points 14 hours ago
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world -2 points 14 hours ago

Yeah but how does she plan to seize the means of production?!?!