this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
658 points (99.5% liked)

politics

25045 readers
1839 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
[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The court didn't actually rule that Trump's changes to birthright citizenship are legal, they only ruled that the lower courts couldn't issue nationwide injunctions to stop him.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Is that functionally different in your mind? Perhaps it is slightly different if we assume they're going to stop here and not take it any further but that seems obviously untrue so I'm not sure why the distinction matters.

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It's different because the court is still likely to have to rule on the actual problem eventually. They might get around to ruling that Trump's changes are unconstitutional, but they have this weird idea that the "harm" Trump would suffer by having his probably-unconstitutional plans put on hold while courts sort out their legality is somehow greater than the harm suffered by all the people who will be affected if the plans go ahead.

[–] FanciestPants@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

This is like that time when the supreme court had to hold deliberations on whether the local police in an active shooter situation could take the gun away from the shooter, and potentially violate the shooter's second amendment rights. They didn't rule on it right away, but issued a ruling that lower courts could not rule on the constitutionality of disarming the active shooter, and had to allow the shooter to continue shooting until the second amendment implications could be considered by the supreme court. Then they went into recess.

Edit: None of this happened

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

That's like the difference between banning abortion nationwide and just allowing states to ban it