this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
263 points (98.9% liked)

politics

21143 readers
4031 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
 

Summary

Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance warned that Chief Justice John Roberts may reverse a key Supreme Court precedent to benefit Donald Trump.

Trump seeks to overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1930s ruling that limits presidential power to fire officials.

Vance argues Trump is trying to consolidate executive power and undermine the judiciary. She cited Roberts’ language in a past ruling granting ex-presidents broad immunity as an "ominous sign."

The conservative court may prioritize politics over precedent.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

How do these people live with themselves?

They dedicate their entire lives to upholding this one thing, then seem to have no qualms just completely tearing it apart... Their one job is to interpret what is already written in the Constitution. That's it.

I'm not a fucking judge or an expert on jurisprudence, but I can tell you that the powers they are giving the executive are completely unconstitutional. It is plain as day to anyone who has ever read the document, let alone Supreme Court Justices.

It's shameful... I'm serious though, why are they ok with doing this?

Neil Gorsuch? Didn't that dude side with Native Americans in that one case about upholding some old contract with them? Mr. "Fulfill your duty/obligations" has no qualms completely abdicating his one responsibility of upholding the US Constitution when it really matters. Shame on you.

Edit: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-rules-u-s-must-pay-more-for-native-american-tribes-health-care/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/15/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-opinions.html

This was the one I was thinking of:

In 2020, Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in a 5-to-4 decision declaring that much of eastern Oklahoma falls within Indian reservations.

It began with a memorable passage: “On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise. Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the West would be secure forever.”