this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2025
571 points (99.5% liked)

United States | News & Politics

3286 readers
1013 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

No memes.

Post news related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

On Monday, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to use racial profiling in its militarized immigration raids across Los Angeles, halting an injunction that had barred officers from targeting Latinos based on ethnicity. The court did not explain the reason for its shadow docket order, which appeared to split 6–3 along ideological lines. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the decision was “unconscionably irreconcilable with our nation’s constitutional guarantees,” opening the door to violent persecution of Latinos—including American citizens—by “masked agents with guns.” The majority did not respond to this extraordinary charge, perhaps because it is so obviously true.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] grue@lemmy.world 64 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is tyranny. Literal and explicit, without exaggeration.

Understand that and act accordingly.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 135 points 1 day ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (9 children)

It's time to purge the Supreme Court. It's clear that they don't give a shIt about the law or the constitution. They are the activist judges the Republicans always whined about.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 5 points 16 hours ago (11 children)

Establishment dems are not up to it even if they could win now and they cannot. We need muscular populists that can build and run a political machine, new leadership across the board.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 day ago (4 children)

People put out these ideas, but I rarely see who or how they’d like them to be implemented. Who would you want to initiate the purge? Any democrat president fine?

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago

Expanding the court is the generally anticipated way to do that

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There are several examples from antiquity that show that the people will solve the problem of the government doesn't.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The vast majority of the time, the replacement ends up being worse. It's tricky business overthrowing a government, and the ones that end up on top are usually the most bloodthirsty and least ethical.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Found george orwell's alt account!

Joking, but with organization we could wrest control from these clowns if we got real strong leadership.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

If we could organize, we wouldn't need a violent revolution.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 3 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

Have no fear, organizing to oppose the establishment is quite violent. The labor movement had a lot of fights. From beating the shit out of the police in Minneapolis in the 1920s to the coal miners of Appalachia to the UAW.

That is why I think Sean Fain would be a good presidential candidate. He is willing to fight and honestly.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes. Revolutions are almost always bloody and the result is almost always worse. The people, though, will have a taste for revolution and the second comes easier.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I assume you are pretty confident that you'll survive the purge in-between. Too bad it won't be true for everyone, but I'm sure that's a sacrifice you are willing to make.

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Tinidril@midwest.social -3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

And these tough-guy calls for violent revolution aren't? Please.

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Sorry, I'm going to continue this conversation with the adults.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social -1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

And I guess I'll watch and learn. Standing by for what I'm sure is about to be a riveting adult discussion.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

There’s a mechanism for impeaching Supreme Court justices, which would apply to the six criminals.

Or, just ignore them and start a parallel court. If they won’t do their job, why keep listening to them?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 10 points 1 day ago

Every accusation is a confession

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] lowleekun@ani.social 24 points 23 hours ago (6 children)

The Supreme Court is a joke but the clowns are not really funny, more like sad and pathetic.

As it does not really matter what happens as long as "our side" wins, republican voters won't give a fuck. Also does not help that they are a bunch of stupid bigots that will cheer on this "decision".

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Sunshine@piefed.ca 13 points 1 day ago

It passed with 66.6% of supreme court judges voting in favour.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

When the alien anthropologists find the burnt out husk of our world in the (not so far) future and try to figure out what the hell happened, I hope they find Sotomayor's writings and realize not everyone was batshit crazy.

[–] CubitOom 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] mateofeo85@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

People will study the art of your memes.

[–] thebudman420@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Did they just erase the 14th Amendment and made it null and void? https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv I get it now. It says no State and not no federal. Federal is not a State.

"Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[–] hector@lemmy.today 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Didn't the 14th Amendment also bind the federal government to the Bill of Rights at least? One ammendment did anyway but it was implemented oddly by the courts.

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

The "Bill of Rights" is just a fancy name for the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. As such, they are inherently a binding part of the Constitution. No other amendment is required to make them valid.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 2 points 14 hours ago

Until around the Civil War the Bill of Rights only applied to States and not the federal government. It was not an issue before that because the federal government was not up in everybody's business either. They are only authorized to regulate interstate commerce in the us, and forbidden from inhibiting the free movements of people and goods in between the states.

[–] CubitOom 51 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

I am not a lawyer so don't take this as legal advice. However it seems to me that the Supreme Court really doesn't give a shit about the law, the Constitution, or our rights.

[–] thebudman420@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

We have all been figuring that out what every constitutional right not honored shit on one after another.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

also not a lawyer, but I don't think it's required to see the vile shit that gas been packed into our government.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

They gutted the 14th when they allowed Trump to run. They also used it to justify corporate personhood. Facists don’t really uphold anything ever except their own corruption and bigotry.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Terry stop was deemed legal in 1960s. This was expected as long a white people are safe or not effected.

[–] khannie@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Never heard of that before so for others:

A Terry stop in the United States allows the police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is needed for arrest.

Wikipedia link.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 16 hours ago

Stop and Frisk was the common name. It was used on NYC to target....wait for it.... people of color.

[–] AlecSadler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Can't wait until the people start fighting back violently.

[–] UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world 8 points 20 hours ago

Us Americans are not gonna protest. We are to busy looking at memes

[–] ApeNo1@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago

Make America Gestapo Again

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 16 points 1 day ago

Agents? How could you possibly know?

[–] TacoButtPlug@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I am SO FUCKING GRUMPY after reading this as the first thing I saw waking up today

[–] beccaboben@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"I guess it's time to get into tanning" -white LA allies hopefully

[–] khannie@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Mexican flag t-shirt 🇲🇽

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›